Submarine Surprise - Iowa vs Kirov 2/2 - SEA POWER
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 окт 2024
- Get the game here: store.steampow...
Support me on Patreon: / stealth17gaming
😀 Social
▪️ Discord: / discord
❓ FAQ
▪️ PC specs:
Ryzen 9 5900X - amzn.to/302kxwV
NVIDIA RTX 3080 - amzn.to/3lGDuwZ
Asus ROG Strix X570-E Gaming II - amzn.to/3y0qmaN
Kingston HyperX FURY 32 GB DDR4 3200 MHz - amzn.to/3mPsFKp
Seagate FireCuda 520 SSD 1TB - amzn.to/3iwMKRG
Keyboard Corsair K70 Mk2 - amzn.to/2YaEDUv
Mouse Logitech G502 - amzn.to/3hOf9n8
Can I play with you?
▪️ Yes you can, by becoming a supporter through Patreon or RUclips membership. You need to be at least Major tier to be eligible. You can find the links to these programs above.
Why does your video have so many ads?!
▪️ Please read this community post: / @stealth17gaming
Some of the links in this description are affiliate links.
Well here is the complement of the Kirov/Admiral Ushakov:
20 P-700 Granit (SS-N-19 Shipwreck) AShM
1 x 2 (14) SS-N-14 Silex ASW cruise missiles
12 × 8 (96) SA-N-6 Grumble surface-to-air missiles
2 x 2 (44) OSA-MA (SA-N-4 Gecko) PD SAM
2 × RBU-1000 305 mm ASW rocket launchers
1 × RBU-6000 213 mm ASW rocket launchers
2 × AK-100 100 mm/L60 DP guns
10 533 mm ASW/ASuW torpedo tubes, Type 53 torpedo
8 × AK-630 hex gatling 30 mm/L60 PD guns
Damn, i love that the kirov AI was actually smart enough to wait for the right moment before unleashing 2 waves of missiles for different target, instead of launching them all on the first ship that it see
But it was not that smart bcs she didnt used her active sonar that much when she probably knew a sub could be around
kirov really is the final boss of the cold war lmao
It is the Death Star of the cold war
Kirov reporting
Well I think thats any supercarrier but yes she comes close.
Defeated without a shot, well over 30 years ago. I was more worried about nukes, tbh. This game favors Russian stuff anyway.
@@georgea5991 coping?
Should've made a scenario for when the game crashed :D also that was a great ending nevertheless as the mark 48s were sailing into the unknown while the Mississippi was burning, sorta like a novel ending
SM1-MR was accurately represented - against low-flyers, that is. It had a problem with sea skimming missiles. I would not shoot them at SS-N-19's that were below 60 ft altitude. I'd rely on phalanx and chaff. I'd shoot the SS-N-19 with SM1-MR when it was above that altitude. Above that altitude, SM1-MR should be more accurate than represented.
Since it's just a game and you know nukes won't be used, I'd have the ships closer together so they can use multiple CIWS on the same targets.
I'd also set up the helicopters to enable their transponders. That might lure a few missiles off the ships.
I'm surprised the cruisers didn't have SM2-MR. They were heavy-duty air defense ships. If you have the option to select SM2-MR next time, I'd suggest you do so.
I would also not run the submarine away from the enemy ships. You should be able to fire torpedoes at a fairly long distance.
Not sure if the game can do this, but could a helicopter at 1000-foot altitude detect the SS-N-19s? If so, you could probably have fired the SM1-MR with higher pk because the targets would have been at higher altitude.
SM-2 was introduced with the AEGIS combat system and the Ticonderoga class cruiser, they really only had better performance than SM-1 due to the AEGIS system and SPY-1 radar. SM-1 is still underwhelming in this state of the game though. I'm not going to count every SM-1 fired in this two-part series to see what the Pk was but I'd imagine it's around 15% or less, which is abysmal, even against low altitude targets it should be roughly double that. I don't think the game currently (or will ever) model the terminal illumination fire control radars on the ships that provide better guidance than the search radar. Those are critical to the performance of these semi-active radar homing missiles.
I can't wait to see what modders can do with this game, I imagine within the first year of release we'll have flight III Arleigh Burkes with SM-3 block IIA, GPI, SM-6 block IB, SM-2 block IIIC, and ESSM block II. Even the ESSM block I is more effective than the SM-1s were. Hopefully we get modern Russian and Chinese warships and their weapons too because the game would be a bit boring using those interceptors against Cold War technology.
I knew from the first video this was a scenario balanced against NATO. The Iowa is a relic, the real American sea power is in it’s incredible blue water air power.
The Kirov is absolutely a modern battlecruiser of the modern age, backed with Soviet Naval Air Arm long ranged bombers it was designed to strike NATO battlegroups from the edge of their air envelope.
It’s very interesting watching gamers and sim fans get to grips with Cold War surface warfare tactics.
If you’d had a carrier, then the scenario slants very heavily in NATOs direction.
You have agm109 on the missouri... who can shoot really far away... not only big guns
Yes completely forgot about it
@@akbaralluha why are you writing like a 12 yo kid?
@jackcarelli They probably are a 12 year old kid. 😂😂😂
I mean you're comparing a battleship that was built in 1943, finished in 1944 and a battlecruiser that was built in 1974. I don't know what people were expecting other than the Missouri getting wrecked.
I expected Kirov to get clapped by tomahawks and guns but he didn't move in nor really fire missiles
Yes I never expected Iowa to win. It was a scenario that many people wanted to see though.
Iowa class would be an absolute missile magnet by the Soviet, and i really doubt that it will survive against saturated attack by P-700 Granit just like this. Cant imagine the combination of Tu-95, 22M3, and 160 with Kirov combo against Carrier Battlegroup, that would be scary af. IMO they should let US having Arleigh Burke, maybe it will change the scenario a bit :)
No, we shouldn't be able to see what weapons the enemy has left I think.
The SA-N-6 of the Kirov has a minimum engagement altitude of like 80 feet, which is why it never shot at your Harpoons. The shorter-ranged systems have somewhat better V-low altitude performance.
This stop start way of playing pausing every couple of seconds is doing my head in.
You should've change the escort formation to one side, tight so they screened the Missouri. And you should've not hesitate with harpooning from the sub.
Does it feel like soviet ships are tuned up a bit too much and NATO ships are tuned down? especially the US intercept missiles
It's hard to know. I think most of the youtubers testing this aren't very knowledgeable, so even a poor AI can defeat them.
Hi Stealth,
Do no assume that they see all of your ships.
At first they only detected your escort. That's why they only fired two missiles and only at it.
When the rest of the fleet lit up, Kirov could see all of you.
Sometimes you're going to have to let the escort defend itself. For operational security.
Fair enough
Not sure why you didn't launch the Tomahawks the Missouri carries...
Forgot about them.
@@Stealth17Gaming Ooopsie 😂❤😂
@@Stealth17Gaming Tell that to the Court Martial board. :D
@@nonameeither6804 Won't be a Court Martial board... assuming that the MO or the MS were his flagship.... he'd be sleeping with the fishes long before the news of the loss even got back to Washington DC.
Kirov doesn't have its radars rotating.......EMCON?
Correct
i remember a similar issue in cold waters, where submarines will accidently surface when ascending to shallow depths because of time compression
the Battleship is only doing 19knots? why so slow?
The fleet replenishment oiler being included the formation lowered the formation's top speed. In reality the oiler would have bugged off well before shooting started and the formation would've been moving faster, but that wouldn't really have made any difference in this scenario.
You needed something with SM-2s to defend blue, a Tico most likely. A surface action group like that I believe would have had one.
Exactly... A Tico is a dedicated fleet defense cruiser. It by itself would have been more effective than all 4 of the escort ships that he took. That and his tactics were pretty bad...
Good scenario! I would have it so that the American side always spawns either a Permit, Sturgeon or Flt 1 LA class. The Soviet side has a chance to spawn a November, Victor I or Victor II. I'd also change the Spruance to possibly spawn a Kidd-class, which were more specialized for anti-air. The winning strategy would be to engage the soviet battlegroup with the SSN as soon as possible to put them on the defensive. Depending on your skill with the SSN, you might either continue to prosecute the Soviet SAG with torpedoes until it is destroyed, or just lead it on a wild goose chase while the American SAG gets into position to fire. The foil is that if the Soviet group detects you first, you'll be playing defense for the rest of the scenario. Or if the Soviet SSN counterdetects the American sub's initial sprint.
I like the scenario. Too bad that it didn't get to the end. But I have a question: How can I send you a detailed scenario proposal? I got two realistic ideas for you to try out. Would love to see it. 🎉
Email is best - stealth@stealth17gaming.com
That bug has been present since cold waters, when you order a periscope depth but AI might not handle the ship accurate enough and cause it to accidentally surface, especially when you are using time compression
I feel like USS Missouri would've survived those shipwrecks. Now, she would still be completely and uttery mission killed as all her sensors, missiles, and CIWS were located in the superstructure, but the missiles seemed to have hit somewhere above/on top of the armored citadel. So even if the Granits defeated the armor, the water integrity of the ship shouldn't be completely compromised. The fires, on the other hand, that's a completely different story as they would undoubtedly be raging in the affected area because they're still 7 tonne missiles with a 750 kg warhead going at mach 1.6 at this point.
Yeah, It's like an 20 inch shell hitting. Extreme but not necessarily oneshot for a battleship
I'm excited for this game to drop. I plan on doing a group of Oscar 2s against a CBG. It was one of the strategies the Soviets planned
It's annoying how terrible the US intercept missles are.
It’s completely unrealistic and turning me off from buying the game honestly
@@antilarge7860 is there any data on USN intercepting supersonic missiles? Like test fire results?
@@rawnukles If you look at that other video a guy playing Kirov (Wolfpack345), on a later build, you can see his missiles are getting intercepted a lot and he mentioned the buff to intercept
@@MadGelo Oh they're ready, but technology limitations of the time prevents them from being able to completely counter this strategy, especially with supersonic anti-ship missiles existing.
They’re much improved in later versions, as showcased by other RUclipsrs.
All of stealth’s vid are of the first build, build 50. I’m guessing he just recorded a bunch of vids on like day one and is spamming them out over the following weeks to game the algorithm.
Good for him, but it makes the game look bad because he’s never learning anything nor showcasing actual fixes and improvements to the game.
I still think it would be cool if the USS Missouri had some kind of old/new school proximity air burst shells for its main batteries that could target incoming missiles. Or it had the ability to fire missiles from the main batteries. I think the USS Missouri actually could fire missiles from the main guns now that I think about it...
Fire missiles from the main battery? Really? There is no way missiles she had could fit or be loaded in the turrets, which is why she had missile launchers added on to her in the first place (none of them being surface-to-air missiles).
Also, even if there was a proximity burst for the main batteries, it would be extremely impractical for those guns to track a sea-skimming missile going 2.5 mach, the turret rotation time is only like 4 degrees a second, and the reload would be ~30 seconds.
Hopefully the modding scene is good. Would love to see the next generation of US/NATO ships that the devs will likely not include.
Gib american VLS.
Yeah the arm launchers hold them back a lot lol
I enjoyed the video, thank you!
So bad he game crashed before you could get revenge. I didn't catch how far the targets were, Mk 48 has 55 kts speed, I badly wanted to see if the Soviet ships could run away. Btw., I always found the British equivalent of the Mk 48, the Spearfish, so scary - they run at 80 kts (if they work :D).
I was very hyped for this game. I have loved CMO for years (and CMANO before) but I kinda missed cool graphics.
Seeing a few of your videos, I see now that I actually prefer a clean CMO interface with markers. It gives better immersion (as a fleet commander you'd be more likely to see a map with markers on it, not cool 3D visuals). It does not give you shenaningans like revealing how many missiles were shot even though you have a radar contact for only one (CMO has this problem with Tacview 3D renderer to doesn't it?), as you can see the rest in the 3D view. CMO has also such an impressive range of units and weapon systems because you don't need to design graphics for them. Finally, I just realised that the markers and map just sits better with me (it's totally clear to me that other people may have different preferences and it's great that finally there's some choice!). This does not mean I will not be interested in playing the Sea Power myself - but chiefly it helped me appreciate the CMO.
Love your channel and content, however one piece of honest criticism: you pause/start the game entirely too much compared to other RUclips game reviewers. It's a bit nauseating when you hit the pause every five seconds to jump around and I find myself forwarding through much of your video.
Yes I've heard that many times now. Starting next week Wednesday I'm changing that.
I feel like the NATO equivalent of a Kirov is a Nimitz.
This is insane, did they US have NOTHING to counter the shipwreck in the 90's? Or are the Harpoons nerfed?
Arleigh Burke destroyers and Ticonderoga cruisers were for that purpose.
The development of the Ticonderoga and Alright Burke was the response to the p700 and p1000 carriers
The US had moved away from surface action groups. Anti shipping was a carrier role centered on the A-6. Thats why the Soviet missiles had to be so large and long range - to penetrate the screen of aircraft.
But carrier groups do not do "presence" very well. If you need to occupy waters a surface group is a much better option.
Pretty much. The original P-700/SS-N-19 was an insane missile for its time on insane ship
Supersonic 7 ton anti ship missiles with interntial targeting, active radar, home on jam and even data-link with a group attack capability,
All designed in the 1970s
Basically yes, they didn't have an effective counter.
There's a reason analyst were shocked when they found out about P 700 in the 90s. Soviet missiles were comparatively extremely advanced in those days. Also these missiles are armored so it should take a number of direct hits of CIWS to destroy them if you're unlucky. I mean it's a chunk of titanium armored 750 Kg of explosives or nuke coming your way at mach 1,5 at like 20m height. Good luck intercepting that with a ship and tech from the 70s or 80s.
To those suggesting Arleigh Burke class: They barely existed a decade later as P700, after the cold war ended. But in game you definetely need them because otherwise you gotta get a carrier with some F14's and shit since that's still US naval doctrine and could clap a Kirov
21:23 russian ships are known for their active sonar, but here you presented them with the biggest sonar reflektor possible ;) Try to only present your bow or you flanks at shallow angles of attack.
This game will be nice, when its finished.
Are there Arliegh Burkes and Ticonderogas in the game?
Tico's yes but no VLS, game is set in the mid 80s
@acesirr even at that, we get the early Tico, so half the VLS capability.
I heard that this game was made to be more moddable, given the success of things like dotmod for cold waters.
we can expect that mods will eventually give us the next gen of NATO hardware
@@Grim821 Absolutely we will get that, wondering if we'll get mods like CL-1201 aswell, that could be fun.
@@acesirrthe first VLS Tico USS Bunker Hill was launched in 85 and commissioned in 86. Perfectly reasonable they might be included.
Your accuracy is 10% out of 100%
I love the content seriously ive been watching you for a while, but dude, for the love of god stop pausing the game man it ruins the immersion
So when facing Kirov, surface ships should retreat and let the sub handle it?
Basically, you'd need a Ticonderoga with SM-2s to reliably defeat P-700 Granit (SS-N-19 Shipwreck) missiles in this game.
Love the videos but just a little too much pausing.
Saw that a lot in comments. Starting with the videos next Wednesday (record a week in advance) I'm not pausing anymore.
It could be a lot worse. I watched a different RUclipsr play Sea Power a few days ago. They never stopped waffling on the whole video. The problem was that very little of what they said was strictly relevant to the game. The stream was a few hours long. I had to give up after about 20 minutes. I can cope with a few pauses to explain what the player is doing or to take a screenshot or two. Mindless twaddle, much less so. 😊😊❤❤😊😊
@@Stealth17Gaming I imagine I'll be pausing quite a bit when I begin playing next month. Love seeing your videos though. Your narration while playing is top notch.
@@subvet3668 Yeah but when you play nobody gets to see it ;). Thanks for the compliment!
19:18 “the Udaloy is a designated anti-submarine ship”
You got a funny spelling for “target” there, friend (says the sub).
i dont get it why people love iowa, everything that it does, average cruiser does better
thats because big guns are cool.
Its no more complicated than that.
Could you maybe do a video with cruise missile Submarines? Have not seen a video like that before...
I'll add it to my list
there is other nation fleet in game than russian and us navy ??
There's a few minor nations in the game, can't remember all of them. But you have Vietnam, North Korea, Israel and Iran. Devs confirmed that more nations will be added post-launch.
@@aniowaclassbattleship7257 thanks
They seem to have really nurfed the sm-2s and harpoons in this game.
That is just the early build that Mr. Stealth recorded the videos on. If you go to wolfpack's channel, he runs a similar situation on a later build and the US missiles were much improved.
Turns out it was just a bug.
SM-2 Block 1s have poor performance against sea-skimming missiles, especially against sea-skimmers with jamming, which is most soviet AShMs. This is realistic and more or less working as intended, save for some problems with proximity fuses.
And harpoons... well, if you compare a harpoon against a supersonic, sea-skimming or maneuvering soviet AShM with defensive jamming, it won't compare terribly well. It's not a terrible missile or anything, and its small size and "pop-up" final approach can make it quite tricky to intercept. But yea
Bear in mind the harpoon was originally designed to attack surfaced soviet submarines, not well defended surface ships
@@Billy-I-Am-Not I'm pretty sure that only SM-1s were fired in these videos. SM-2 was definitely an upgrade over SM-1 but SM-2 performance also depends on the ship launching it, Ticonderoga cruisers with SPY-1 radars and the AEGIS combat system saw much better results in testing with their SM-2s.
@@stevenreddy6842 well if that’s the case, then that really makes my point even stronger. I don’t know how well the tico performed with SM-2s, like, objectively. But the block III upgrade was specifically to improve low alt performance
It just seems NATO stuff is subpar under the hood. Your interceptor missiles just whiff constantly, where as fewer ships took out 75% of your harpoons, and then the one they didn't get just missed. Even against the Helo in episode 1, it took like three missiles to kill it? I'm not asking for dominance, but man the disparity in missile quality seems glaring in this build
I do get that there's game balance to consider, but in a game like this, it would make more sense to balance this disparity via some kind of points cost instead of nerfing one side.
If anyone's interested in the overall levels of competence in the Soviet Navy and its culture, I highly recommend looking up Paper Skies video on the incident where 16 Soviet admirals died in a Tu-104 plane crash. And then considering the wider implications of such a total lack of discipline at the very top of the chain of command: that it wasn't just 16 corrupt admirals, but rather a command culture where that kind of corruption and idiocy was fully normalised.
@@TheCharlemang The newer builds of this early look have improved the intercept rates. This is demonstrated in Wolfpack's Kirov video.
Can you make that an aircraft carrier and navy ships support ground troops??
Sort of, yes
Not sure why you didn't launch all of your sub's harpoons. I can see launching piecemeal if you were unsure of where the enemy ships are, but you had a solid track on the Kirov which was the mission objective. So a large-scale missile strike should have been ordered. Your sub was in virtually no danger of being detected considering that you were still around 60nm from the Kirov when you launched. You were also not getting any EM readings off of their fleet which should tell you that they are operating in EMCON and wouldn't have been able to detect the harpoons at launch either. I found it funny how you remarked how your helo got within their SAM range but hadn't been shot down, that should have been another clue that they didn't have any active air search radar in operation. At least not until they detected your harpoons visually and it should be noted that right after that they killed your helo because it wasn't until that point that they knew that it was there.
It only has 4 torpedo tubes, I can only fire 4 Harpoons at a time before the sub has to reload.
@@Stealth17Gaming Still your sub had virtually no chance of being detected where it was at. It was completely off the expected threat axis and not likely to be actively searched considering that they had been using helos as AEW scouts. It would have at least given you a chance of doing damage.
Back when I was in the service we had a chart that we referenced for missile saturation of any given Russian ship... For the Kirov it was 10 missiles with roughly the same time on target in order to "guarantee" at 2 to 4 hits.
There are a ton of armchair admirals in your videos lol, anyways I'd be curious to see how multiple subs fighting each other plays out
Are there no Tomahawks on the BB?
Yes, but I forgot that
Just damn.
I find it hard to believe a massively armoured BB could be sunk by HE missiles no matter what size the warheads are.
I think her upperworks would be mangled and any modern FCS taken out along with significant crew loss but the main magazines, the propulsion and hull integrity would remain almost intact.
This game seems to consider BB's to be no more than huge thin skinned DD's.
Keep in mind that the warhead of the P700 is designed to pierce armor, it's the same weight as a 16" shell, and it has more explosive filler than the combined filler of a 9-gun 16" broadside.
I think that stands a good chance of compromising the Iowa class's 6" armor deck and spreading fuel & fire into the citadel.
There's a reason why missiles rendered armor obsolete...
@@TheFirstIcon This. And the P700 coming in in a terminal dive at almost Mach 3 straight on top of the Missouri has a huge amount of kinetic energy, something like 10x that of a 16 inch shell in a steep angle at long range. It is designed to pierce the thinner deck armor and detonate in the magazines, because that is how battleships are killed most easily (like the Hood was). The threat of missives is what ended the battleship, because no amount of armor will protect you against a big supersonic missile in a death dive onto your deck. Never mind the fact that the missile could also be carrying a 200 kiloton nuke…
@@meanfan6963 I think at the point the Brits ended their postwar battleship design attempt, they had worked up a concept that was 70,000 tons with a 12" armor deck. Design basis was a rocket assisted Tallboy from 14,000ft. I think even a Kh-22 might struggle with that.
Only problem is now you're paying the cost of a supercarrier for a fraction of the capability.
I'm not sure the damage model considers armour. I suspect it's a hitpoint + component damage system. The capability of those Soviet missiles to sink something like a WWII battleship seems to be a hotly contested topic across the few articles i've managed to skim. Modern carriers, on the other hand, might fare less well. Modern warships have tinfoil armour compared to a WWII era battleship.
Miss Aisles Miss Aisles, pronounce it right mate, not missuls, you arent American
I'm neither American or British