I love how he keeps firing even after he's been hit. Its like, one of two things is going to happen when he parachutes in the water. There will either be a battleship full of angry guys next to you, or you'll have a sinking ship full of downing sailors next to you. Might as well get those last few hits in before you eject.
Reminds me of how a Soviet tailgunner on a Sturmovik, knowing he had only seconds to live anyway, managed to kill the German ace that was following his plane down
Would never have worked that way. The AA guns on the ship couldn’t effectively deal with dive bombers of that era, and would certainly never have been able to achieve hits at that angle.
I’m not at all familiar with this game, but I had a similar reaction. Was the Scharnhorst given a modern CIWS perhaps? The AA fire was fantastically accurate for a WW2 ship; “fantastically” as in “highly unrealistic”, “a fantasy.
They could deal with dive bombers, just not with all of them if many attacked at once. Plenty of dive bombers were lost to ship AA fire. Mostly in the Pacific campaign though, which had much more naval action.
@@h8GW German shipboard AA fire during WW2 was notoriously bad. The ships of the Kriegsmarine had inadequate protection. The guns and gunners were inaccurate. They could not hit a Swordfish bi-plane coming in for a low level attack. German WW2 anti aircraft fire isn't about to hit an A-10 at any altitude or attack pattern.
@@ralphtomlinson4520 You are joking, right? The reason they could not hit a Swordfish because the fire control computer didnt have a setting for something so incredibly slow target. It was certainly not because of "inaccurate guns".
@@ralphtomlinson4520 just in case you didn't know, one of the swordfish pilots that sunk the Bismarck took part in the fighting in the Channel Rush. There, attacking an organized fleet(Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, Prinz Eugen and escort vessels) his whole squadron got decimated in a single torpedo run. Lone ships are vunerable, no matter how good the AA is.
Fun perspective fact: After WW2 America tried to sink the ww2 German cruiser Prinz Eugen with TWO atomic bombs in "tests". To everyone's amazement the CRUISER survived both attacks.
It's highly unlikely the Scharnhorst would be able to track the A-10 accurately with it's AA guns, as the elevation and traverse mechanisms were geared for WW2 aircraft, which flew at no more than around 150 to 200 mph when on attack runs.
@@oldfrend also you don't need that much tracking if it's coming right at you. And frequent turning means more risk time spent inside enemy AA range for fewer shots in target.
@@bostonrailfan2427 Belgrano was sunk by torpedoes, not missiles. And modern anti-ship missiles are not designed to sink WWII ships, nor purpose-built for armor penetration either. An exocet or harpoon missile would not penetrate the heavily armored parts of a battleship.
@@crownprincesebastianjohano7069 Mostly true, but they would wreak havoc on the com and targeting systems - which could make an otherwise moderate to heavy armored ship useless and defensless. Other AA systems and deck guns, fittings, and ammo lockers would also be either destroyed or rendered inoperable, not to mention the terrible attrition among gun crews. Modern guided bombs would certainly penetrate the decks of most WW2 ships, exploding below. SInking a ship is not the only criteria for success. On the flip side, an A-10 is vulnerable to manually aimed AA fire because of its large size and slow flight. 20mm and 40mm Bofors would do a lot of damage with just a few hits out of thousands.
That was insane fun! Couldn’t rip my eyes from the screen 😳 loved the idea and the range of weapons used with one of my favourite planes! Totally cool thanks so much especially after a hard day’s work 😅😁😉👍👊
That was a battlecruiser, not a battleship. In either case, it would be a no win situation for the ship. A10's have a different method of attack, not to mention greater speed and maneuverability compared to their WW2 era counterparts.
Care to share where the Germans called the Scharnorst a battlecruiser? Oh, don't tell me, armchair historians know more about ships than the people that actually built them.
@@Ravege98 Look up BATTLE WINNING Tanks, Aircraft & Warships of World War 2 by David Miller... page 120. Also, the correct spelling is Scharnhorst.... you forgot the other 'h' . In some readings, they were known as capital ships, but they were used in commerce raids for the most part. When they came across actual battleships, they always declined to engage because of their limited range of fire from the smaller main gun batteries of 11". True battleships of that era had a minimum of 14" main guns for the British, 15" for the Germans, up to 16" for Americans, and up to 18" for the Japanese dependent upon class.They, Scharnhorst and her sister ship Gneisenau, were to get upgraded to 15", but this never happened. Battleships are based on placement of heavy armor, and gun displacement. The only true battleships used by the Kriegsmarine, were the Bismarck and Tirpitz. However, in aesthetic beauty and size for a very heavy battlecruiser, Scharnhorst is one of my favorite designs. 👍
@@markhamrick9078 How many ships did the Musashi fire on? If none, I guess she’s not a battleship? One does not define a ship by what it ends up doing, otherwise there are very few battleships at all. “True battleships”, therefore, is a very subjective and poor way to describe a ship. In all contemporary literature, the Kriegsmarine *always* described the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau as battleships. Are you or your authors more authoritative sources?
@@Ravege98 Design, by definition, is the reason for why something is built. Musashi and her sister ship Yamato, were truly impressive battleships, even though their purpose to engage other battleships never came to fruition. Ironic that the Japanese brought about the demise of the battleship and the importance of air power with their attack on Pearl Harbor. Aircraft carriers became the new capital ships, whereas battleships had a new role in ship to shore naval bombardments for landing craft, as well as protecting the carriers from aircraft with their heavy aa armaments. The Kriegsmarine had planned on having more time to build up and test new ship/propulsion designs, and even wanted carriers, but were rushed into service by Hitler's starting the war a couple of years ahead of schedule.... against his military leader's strong objections of course. The Scharnhorst, if by just looking at the specs/gross tonnage, could be classified as a battleship, and had they refitted it with 15" guns as planned, would've increased the tonnage and firepower to true battleship standards. They would've then engaged in ship to ship with the British I'm sure, instead of being the commerce raiders of which they were actually very good at. It's all a moot point anyway, as aircraft carriers became the standard measure of a countries true military power.
By the video, the best line of attack is to the front of the ship. There appears to be the least amount of AA fire in the direction. Also low level at about 50m, firing directly at the bridge and control section. The 30mm rounds from the A-10 have a punch equivalent to a WW2 round twice its size. The A-10 is also able to launch Hellfire missiles with fire n forget guidance systems at a 2 - 5 km range. This would be outside the range of the AA batteries on the ship.
@@SuperChuckRaney So, break some windows and run away, and call it a victory? In the best case you kill the captain. In which case the ship continues working from the secondary bridge situated deep in the citadel.
The armor was 13 inches at the water line and vital areas above the weather deck. But the weather deck was only 2 inches So the GAU would have no problem boring holes there. Take out the pointy end 1st and to for the after end. Might get lucky with the pointy end and hit the gun magazine. The aft end has the gear reduction, rudder control and prop shafts.
Crossing the T still works with an airplane that's basically a gun platform. Coming in low from the front or rear delivering raking fire would destroy most AA on this old thing. Fight over.
Yes, but modern air-to-sea missiles (such as Harpoon or Exocet) are ill-prepared to deal with highly armored targets such as WW2-era battleships. Simply because there are none today. Not to mention peashooters like Mavericks, which are more suited to destroy tanks, APCs and so on. Dumb bombs would probably work best (the bigger the better). Or laser-guided bombs - which are basically dumb bombs with laser-guidance kit attached. Those provide some stand-off capability, too. Larger missiles (like Tomahawks or ALCMs) could work as well, simply because they provide a bigger boom. And can be launched from hundreds of miles away. But since they are so big, these are mostly ship-launched. Well, B-52 can carry some. :)
@@ammarmar3628 I don't know much strategy, but there is little reason to target the hull with a missile. There are other more vulnerable areas, like the rudders.
@@rutabagasteu That would be a really lucky shot. Guided munition is accurate but not that accurate. And rudder itself is underwater, which makes it very hard to hit. Also, rudder mechanisms on a battleship are one of the most heavily protected areas, armor-wise.
I recently toured a WW2 destroyer and the guide was a retired naval officer who told me that the AA of that time was highly ineffective. They lucky to hit the planes of that era never mind a modern jet power attack air craft with modern guided weaponry. I think an A-10 would make quick work of a WW2 battleship
Despite what all the arm-chair generals tell you, AA fire was extremely effective, it's just the Germans and Japanese both refused to invest in adequate amounts for their ships. Generally, all the members of the "Battleships are completely outclassed by carriers" crowd point to the same handful of cases where swarms of carrier fighters/bombers picked off lone battleships with the worst AA coverage of their time (which, to be fair, the Scharnhorst counts among). It should tell you something that the US used the IOWA class post WW2 to great effect, both in the Korean War when jet fighters were just beginning to show up to the fight and during Vietnam when BVR was becoming a thing. Like, they were obsolete no doubt and have no real place in US navy doctrine, but they aren't _useless_ or somehow more vulnerable to aircraft fire than any other ship- in fact as the previous two wars mentioned they are probably the hardest ships for planes to destroy. I digress. Of all the modern jet aircraft you could use against a battleship, the A10 is the worst. The GAU-8 fires 6,000 rounds of 30mm armor-penetrating depleted uranium shells which can penetrate about 38mm of rolled homogenous at 1000 meters. The thinnest deck armor on the Scharnhorst is 50mm- and that's in the non-critical spots where a penetrating shell won't hit anything even remotely valuable. Like of all the planes you could have brought to this fight, you chose the _one_ modern jet whose primary weapon system is limited to scratching the paint on the side. Sure it can carry other things but anything it can carry something else could, and have done a better job at it too. A more effective weapon to use against this thing is, idk _any_ ASM? And one of those would be better delivered by IDK, _anything else that doesn't have rotors_ ? Still a cool video though
@Exelerant HD Oh look one of the armchair generals I was referring too. I'm fairly certain you're being at least a bit sarcastic, but I'll respond as if you aren't for the purpose of argument. First of all, my claim was not they weren't obsolete, it was just that they weren't useless or particularly vulnerable to carriers. In fact I went on to specify that I thought they were obsolete. Next, when I said "Generally, all the members of the 'Battleships are completely outclassed by carriers' crowd point to the same handful of cases where swarms of carrier fighters/bombers picked off lone battleships with the worst AA coverage of their time" yeah the Yamato is what I was talking about. Despite your claims, the Yamato-class (so including the Musashi) did not, in fact, have "powerful AA defences" nor was the class the "most powerful battleship of the time"- it was just the biggest. The Yamato was laid down in 1937 full of obsolete technology and design flaws and built out of shit steel. Despite having a belt four inches thicker than the Iowa, it offered less protection. Despite having guns 2 inches bigger than the Iowa, they had less penetration. Despite being 20,000 tons larger than the Iowa, it had a third of the AA guns- and those guns were considered some of the worst AA in WW2. Oh, and it didn't have enough AA directors, which were also shit. Not to mention the Yamato itself wasn't actually sunk in fleet action, it was sent alone on a suicide mission mostly to ensure it's destruction so no one else could have it- also as a hail mary for an honorable and glorious death. The Musashi was still rocking that anemic, terrible AA when it was sunk in an engagement against four carriers launching 257 planes. It still took 19 torpedos, 17 bombs, and 9 hours to sink the bitch, during which time it managed to limp half-way back to shore (either to beach it or ensure it sank in shallow water for recovery purposes). Might have made it too, if the engine hadn't given out (after the battle was done of course). In comparison, consider the British and US Battleships which focused heavily on AA coverage and quality, using the revolutionary proximity fuse AA shell and bofors quad 40mm. The British lost Three Battleships and Two Battlecruisers in WW2, one of each was to aircraft. The US lost none, despite using their Battleships specifically as AA platforms to guard high-priority carriers (not including Pearl Harbor of course) . And again, despite the Iowa-class being used in Korea, Vietnam, and _in 1992 in Iraq_ not a single one has been lost. It's also important to note that the Pacific favors the use of Carriers. It's a much larger ocean and the infrastructure of the island bases wasn't as well developed, so land-based aircraft couldn't do as much. In the Atlantic, carriers lose a bit of importance because land-based heavy fighters (and in the channel and north sea, regular fighters) can realistically take care of air superiority and land-based bombers can take care of naval bombing. Since land-based aircraft are flatly superior to carrier-based aircraft, carriers are relegated to a supporting role. Still crucial, but conceivably there are situations where you'd prefer a battleship over a carrier in the Atlantic. So you see, it's not that Battleships were inherently worse than carriers- it's just the data is cherry picked to fit that narrative. As I mentioned before, we're talking about a handful of cases where swarms of aircraft picked off (admittedly not always) lone battleships with the worst AA coverage of their time. Of course, carriers are still superior all-around, but they don't completely outclass battleships in every way and turn them into wastes of space. As for there being no modern battleships... there sort of is? The _Kirov_ class is around that size. The Soviets and Russians call it a "heavy guided missile cruiser" but then again they insist the Kiev-class is a "heavy aviation cruiser" instead of an aircraft carrier. Mostly for political purposes but I digress. The point is, the US recommissioned the Iowa-class specifically to deal with the Kirov. Perhaps it was political, perhaps they actually thought they needed something other than a carrier, I'm not sure which. Either way, it's more than twice as big as the US equivalent of a "heavy guided missile cruiser" the nuclear powered Virginia class. Ah, lastly, you want to know something Ironic? That one time a battleship sunk a carrier you mentioned? The Battleship in question was the Scharnhorst- the very ship in this video. It also had pretty outdated AA. Not as crap as the Yamato mind you, but I mean their 37mms were manually loaded, so that should say enough.
@@tonyennis1787 First of all, I never claimed that I wasn't. Second of all, I never claimed that they did. Whether or not to believe my entirely unprofessional opinion is up to you. Consider this though: if you aren't an admiral, and I'm not an admiral- then your doubts carry no more weight than my assertations. Of course if you _are_ an admiral, I would love to hear your opinion on this topic and why you (presumably) disagree with my assessment.
An impressive simulation. I am reminded of a display by GB Navy, during one of the official celebrations of a recent Queen's birthdays there. It was commented that that then and their British Navy was only about a third the physical size of the GB's Navy or less, but packed five times the firepower of the WW2 GB Navy.
It’s the munitions not the plane I reckon from the stand off range the A10 should be fine the swordfish bomber had the right tools ie torpedoes not weapons designed for tanks! Great video
A 105mm hit would do some serious damage, and the wings don’t have much if any armor. Then again, a direct hit isn’t as likely. Guess it depends on how close the shell bursts.
@@PhantomP63 something with tungsten shrapnel maybe? Still.. There are countless accounts of A-10's returning from a long ground support mission riddled with damage and the pilot's were surprised the aircraft didn't respond adversely..
@@PhantomP63 it's a phenomenon, really. Usually if bureaucracy has it's way, it doesn't matter how well it works, it gets replaced. The A-10 works too well and is irreplaceable. They US was trying to replace the plane with the F 35 in the close air support role. Congress laughed at the defence contractors saying the F 35 could do what the A-10 does cheaper and better.
I'm not using flares as a real countermeasure. Since I can only escape, I use it as a resistance at least (it has no effect) It was beautiful when viewed from the replay, so I recorded it.
Love it, so we're talking hypotheticals here so what if the Scharnhorst were sailing with the Bismark and the aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin which could easily have happened, the two battleships would have thrown up a wall of flak, but lets throw the Bf 109's in from the Graf Zeppelin, the A10 is coming in at a typical strafing run at around 300 - 350 mph that just about allows the 109 an intercept in a dive, the two 7.62mm MG's might not trouble the armoured A10 to much but the two 20mm cannons would definately wake the A10 driver up when bits started falling off, great video
So true. Bismarck was their top of the line ship. It was attacked and crippled by obsolete WWI Fairey Swordfish biplanes with a maximum airspeed of only 95 mph. The targeting computers on Bismarck failed to down a single plane. They switched to "splash down" method, firing in the plane's path hoping the geyser would stop them. That defense failed too.
It was actually more an issue because of how slow the planes were travelling, the fire control radars overestimated their speed as it thought no plane could fly that slow and therefore most firing solutions flew harmlessly infront of the swordfish and the shells that did hit, due to the swordfish being made of canvas and not aluminium like most planes of the day the shell wouldn't detonate and instead punch straight through without punching more than a small hole that was shrugged off as opposed to say blowing off a wing like it should've, had newer planes been used it's likely a good few would've been shot down but thanks to the swordfish being the most obsolete yet effective plane ever built, being almost 20 years obsolete when it was first designed and built it actually did it some favours, same with the raid on taranto against the Italians
The A-10 goes around 700, maybe 750km/h at best, WWII Planes (Props) Managed that aswell, the Me 262 could go even beyond 800 and the Me 163 supposedly passed 1000km/h. So yeah, nothing unsual. additionally, planes at that altitude and weight definetly dont reach that top speed
If the Battleship Scharnhorst had modern 64 bit computers, modern AESA radars and long range anti air missiles. The A-10 won't have a single chance to drop GBU-8.
Then it would be a rather different ship. It's hard to believe the actual Scharnhorst's AAA suite would have been as effective as it is shown in the video.
@@kennethkellogg6556 yep, especially after the Gatling gun suppressed/destroyed many of the lightly protected AA positions, of which there were not enough to begin with
@@kennethkellogg6556 Upgraded Missouri did saw service in 1991 Gulf War where majority of it's time were launching cruise missiles and firing it's main guns.
The A-10 carrying capacity is fully capable of carrying anti-ship missiles and MK-48 torpedoes. And the Japanese Type 96 anti-aircraft gun simply could not penetrate the armor of the A-10.
While the gun is what we most associate with the A-10, it can also carry 16,000 lbs of precision guided bombs that it can deploy from far out of the range of the Scharnhorst's AA defense. Afterward, they can strafe the sinking hulk.
Strafe the hull - you don't want to risk getting caught for that. Intenionally killing seamen from a mission killed warship isn't if i understand the RoE for USAF legal. It would basically mean that the opponent can now declare : all american servicemen in need of help is NOW illegal combatant.
Yes, a laser-guided Maverick could hit the waterline from out to 25km away and will penetrate MORE THAN 1,000mm (39.4") of RHA Armor. The blast would be small though. You'd have to put all 10 missiles into the hull. Each one only has a 125lb shaped-charge warhead.
I doubt that a battleship could keep bulls-eyeing the a10, but I also doubt the a10 could sink a battleship unless it got a very lucky shot on the ammo storage. The biggest ordnance used in the simulation are only equivalent in weight to a typical battleship shell, and battleships were specifically armoured to withstand shells of that size.
A10s CAN carry up to 2,000lb bombs on each of their 7 pylons. The Small-Diameter Bomb is a 250lb or 500lb armor-piercing wind-corrected glide munition designed for bunker busting. They'd slice right through that ship.
Interesting. I would think a squadron attack at low level with 2 to 6 planes and rockets would be most effective. Sterilize the decks. then do the dive bombing with the dumb bombs. I found the flares put out by one of the first a10s amusing. Ships didn't have infrared tracking tech at this time. They barely had radar. Of course if you have one anomaly (the A10) you can have another.
No, low level with multiple planes is not the most effective attack, in my opinion. That one guided bomb from one high altitude striker was all the kinetic action necessary to obliterate the entire warship. That kill shot low of it's forward gun turret penetrated into its wooden deck, blew the ammunition reserves below the turret, as well as everything else below decks that was explosive, compromising all internal bulkheads and armour, and definitely the hull below sea level enough to ensure its new occupation as a reef. I balked out lout when that first a-10's left wing just sheered off without it flinching. Damn I love this air frame. It represents hope for the future in a present of multibillion dollar pavement princesses for me.
Sharnhorst did not have AA capabilities like that. The A10 would have engaged at a much further distance, using missiles, which would have done a huge amount of damage. There is also the A10's ability to high altitude bomb a target...enough said.
Today's plane-based weapons systems make it possible to acquire targets and destroy them from a relatively safe distance. As fearsome as the A-10's rapid-fire gun is in ground-support missions, I think a few well-placed anti-ship missiles would be the better choice, in this imaginary case.
As it was it was difficult to track and hit kamikaze 5yrs later in the East. Also both the attacker and the attacked are moving. Difficult at best without our present day radar systems.
i doubt an A-10 would be very effective at sinking a battlecruiser. unless its the best luck ever, the bomb will just light it on fire and "inconvenience" the crew
@@wembozandco.807 I doubt that 20 and 30 millimeter cannon rounds would do very much to sink the cruiser...maybe take out the bridge. But there is redundancies for things like that. However a laser guided 1000 pound bomb or two at the waterline could be devastating.
Depends on the thickness of the belt armor, which on some battleships was up to 406mm, so even the GAU-8 rounds likely would have done little to no damage on the main armor belt, or the main gun turrets. However, the upperworks of the ship and smaller secondary battery mounts would be a lot more susceptible to those 30mm rounds. Hard to do much when everything above the main deck is Swiss cheese and ammo in the secondary batteries starts cooking off.
The 30mm would have turned the battleship's AA gun crews into hamburger from beyond a range where they (at least the 20mms) could even hit her. That would be as she was following in either [8] 500lb bombs or [4] 2,000lb bombs that most likely would have been fitted as wind-corrected glide bombs (released from up to 50km away) from her wing pylons. As she passed over the Battleship (now dealing with MULTIPLE laser-guided bomb strikes) she would strafe the AA to suppress them before releasing 16 Small-Diameter Bombs from her underbelly rack. Those 250lb GPS-Guided bombs would punch right through the ship's superstructure, destroying whatever the 500lb/2,000lb bombs didn't. The Battleship wouldn't stand a chance since the A10 could release her payload from 50km away. More likely though, the A10 would do this from 20km away because the ship is moving. To compensate for target movement, the A10 would use laser-guided munitions to sink the ship (which have better accuracy against moving targets). Keep in mind that a single A10 carries the same number of munitions as HALF of a SQUADRON of US NAVY Avenger Dive Bombers.
@@swaghauler8334 Like I said, you would not destroy any vital parts. You would make mincemeat of crews in the open and probably wreck most of the superstructure, but the systems that make the ship stay in one piece would not be compromised. The bombs lack the armor piercing capability to threaten either the machinery or the magazines. Swarms of A-10s would eventually overwhelm a battleship, but a single one wouldn't be able to sink under typical conditions.
The General Electric GAU-8/A Avenger is a 30 mm hydraulically driven seven-barrel Gatling-style autocannon that is typically mounted in the United States Air Force's Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II.
My first target would have been the maneuvering controls of the ship; ie the rudder. Then approach from the stern and, skimming the surface at sixty degrees, rake the AA guns from both sides. Once she is "dead in the water" with no threat to aircraft it should be easier take out the turrets and superstructure.
Anyone who knows their history knows that when attacking a WW2 BS, you go in as low as possible. That's how 8 Swordfish Biplanes got in so close to the Bismarck without any losses.
@atomicsnarl True. They were also highly non-reflective as well which only compounded that. My point is the Bismarks AA guns were primarily designed for modern mid- to high level attacks and not the sea-skimming levels the slow Swordfish could only attain for their attacks. Don't get me wrong though, luck had a LOT to do with it.
The A-10's weapons wouldn't penetrate the ship's armor, and the ship's AA couldn't track the A-10. It's a no win. Even though the A-10 could attack out of effective range of the ship's AA, without legitimate armor piercing weapons (tank armor doesn't come close to the armor on WWII heavy cruisers and battleships). The A-10 is designed as an anti-personnel and anti-tank ground attack bomber, a battle cruiser is a completely different league. The only thing the Scharnhorst could hope for is an extremely lucky spray and pray hit on the A-10 as the crew and her equipment would be completely outclassed by the A-10's speed and maneuverability.
Why can't an A-10's weapons penetrate that ship's armor? The Maverick laser-guided AT missile will penetrate 1100mm of RHA tank armor... that's 43 INCHES of plate steel. The 250lb Small Diameter Bomb will penetrate more than a METER of reinforced concrete or 25 inches of RHA. Even an Iowa class could be pierced by modern AT weapons.
The idea of 30mm Gatling is not that a single hit is likely to do a significant damage. The idea is to get ~5 hits on a target the size of a tank. On a battlecruiser, A-10 is likely to achieve hundreds of hits for each volley.
You have never seen an A-10's rounds in action then. They don't just penetrate a tank's armor, they blow through the whole tank. Armor, engine, crew and exit out the out the other side usually. And each time a round hits something it creates shrapnel that causes more damage. The best way to attack would have been to get on the deck behind the ship, use the 30mm to disable turning and propulsion. Strafe just at or below the waterline causing leaks along one whole side of the ship. You don't have to blow big holes in the hull, just crack it. A bomb just at the waterline will do the same thing. Compression to create cracks, and let water in.
Most of the readers are to young to care but I used to play a A-10s over Cuba game back in the middle 1990’s on Windows 95. One mission was to sink a ship right off the shore of the air-force base.
投稿者的に一番好きな所はGAU-8とロケット弾をありったけ放った後せめてもの抵抗として
フレア放出しながら身を捩り対空砲火を避けようとするA-10が容赦なく機体を裂かれ墜落する所です。
00:00 GAU-8,20mm M61ガンポッド×2
00:52 FFAR Mk4 無誘導ロケット弾×84
1:57 2000lb Mk84 無誘導爆弾×6
2:48 AGM-65Bマーベリック×6
4:03 ↑で到底やれそうにないので突撃
4:42 GBU-8 2000lb 誘導滑空爆弾
Danke!
若干性癖混じってる気が、、、
30mm
Attack from the front or back not sides it has all the AA on the sides.
@1:33 The A-10 firing off flares to distract the shells from the ship, priceless.
In fairness, in World War II, no one had seen flares like that. May stop them from shooting thinking they killed it.
I love how he keeps firing even after he's been hit. Its like, one of two things is going to happen when he parachutes in the water. There will either be a battleship full of angry guys next to you, or you'll have a sinking ship full of downing sailors next to you. Might as well get those last few hits in before you eject.
Reminds me of how a Soviet tailgunner on a Sturmovik, knowing he had only seconds to live anyway, managed to kill the German ace that was following his plane down
@robertschaeffer4010 typically, there's no such thing as one A-10... ;-)
But, also technically, there are no more battleships...
Or, third option, it's a video game so why the hell not.
Actually, he can still fly home after that
5:11 ここからの軌道修正の具合やばw
はずしたやんこれ…って思ってたらどんどん吸い込まれていって草生えた
0:03 ここのロール美しくてよき
こう見ると世界の技術はすごい発展してきたんだなと思った
but in fact it developed, in reality the A-10 could avoid the ship's anti-aircraft and attack from a distance with guided missiles
滑空爆弾君絶対届かないだろと思ったらめっちゃねばって届いたのすご
誘導滑空爆弾が思ったよりもずっと誘導しててびっくりした
わかる!絶対届かないところから落として命中するってすごい。
Apa nama game ini???
@@putraputra-sv7kv War Thunder
初手の直上から急降下するシーンがすっごいかっこいい
Would never have worked that way. The AA guns on the ship couldn’t effectively deal with dive bombers of that era, and would certainly never have been able to achieve hits at that angle.
Yea, had a hard time with Swordfish.
I’m not at all familiar with this game, but I had a similar reaction. Was the Scharnhorst given a modern CIWS perhaps? The AA fire was fantastically accurate for a WW2 ship; “fantastically” as in “highly unrealistic”, “a fantasy.
+ a10 is so well armored it can take the punishment that would drop ww2 planes
@@FastEddy1959 "Was the Scharnhorst given a modern CIWS perhaps?" No, the game developers decided to make AA so ridiculously murderous.
They could deal with dive bombers, just not with all of them if many attacked at once. Plenty of dive bombers were lost to ship AA fire. Mostly in the Pacific campaign though, which had much more naval action.
A-10 has visually impressive anti-missile flare display as protection against antiaircraft guns.
The best defense helps the AA gunners lead their shots.
@@h8GW German shipboard AA fire during WW2 was notoriously bad. The ships of the Kriegsmarine had inadequate protection. The guns and gunners were inaccurate. They could not hit a Swordfish bi-plane coming in for a low level attack. German WW2 anti aircraft fire isn't about to hit an A-10 at any altitude or attack pattern.
@@ralphtomlinson4520 You are joking, right?
The reason they could not hit a Swordfish because the fire control computer didnt have a setting for something so incredibly slow target. It was certainly not because of "inaccurate guns".
@@ralphtomlinson4520 just in case you didn't know, one of the swordfish pilots that sunk the Bismarck took part in the fighting in the Channel Rush. There, attacking an organized fleet(Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, Prinz Eugen and escort vessels) his whole squadron got decimated in a single torpedo run. Lone ships are vunerable, no matter how good the AA is.
翼もがれても、最後まで足掻くA-10すこ。
高角砲？を直撃させるシャルンホルストの乗員すごい
フレア焚くの草
フレアの意味無し😭
一機だけであれだけの火力を発揮できるとは・・・
Yes. ask the Iraqis
ちっちゃい爆撃機だもんなぁ
シャルンホルスト砲雷員「たかが一機で、何ができる？！」
構図逆で草
あれは…サジタリウスの爆弾？！
逆だったかもしれねぇ...
@@account8494何が言いたいの？w
みんなで「一揆」起こせば、たかが一機でも有効かもしれません😋ﾍﾟﾛｯ
Fun perspective fact: After WW2 America tried to sink the ww2 German cruiser Prinz Eugen with TWO atomic bombs in "tests". To everyone's amazement the CRUISER survived both attacks.
The entire crew would have been dead due to blunt force trauma.
兵器の進歩が如何に凄いかが分かりますね...急降下前の旋回で鳥肌立ちました......
A-10で戦艦に挑むとか最高！
ロマンがあるなあ……
陸戦機体に船に喧嘩は疑問ですが！
機銃だけの攻撃限定なら、海面ギリに飛んで水平攻撃後帰還、爆弾を補充して垂直攻撃だよね？
@@sin4444hi6 無装甲の現代艦艇なら兎も角、戦艦の装甲は、砲弾に耐え得る物なので、艦橋や対空機銃を破壊する以外の効果は期待出来ないかと…
じゃあ何で大和は沈んだよ
@@IchiyonMaru 魚雷だろ
@@IchiyonMaru
ちなみに真珠湾攻撃も飛行機から魚雷を落として攻撃して船を沈めてたりする。
というかあの時代は大体雷撃ですな。
主砲とか対空機銃を沈黙させるなら通常の爆弾の方が有効だけど、艦船自体を沈黙させるには水面下の船体を攻撃した方が絶対的に有効（船体に穴を開ければ当然沈むし弾薬庫やボイラー室などの動力源も水面下にあることが多い）だから魚雷を落として攻撃した方が強い！みたいな感じですなぁ。
The GAU8 sounds gorgeous. . . The flares are beautiful, and the miasiles are amazing
うぽつです。
ロケット弾まで、（あ、大和が最強になる可能性もあったんだな）なんて思ったけど、無誘導爆弾から現実に引き戻された。そもそも航空機1機vs戦艦の時点で現実に踏ん張るべきだった。
It's highly unlikely the Scharnhorst would be able to track the A-10 accurately with it's AA guns, as the elevation and traverse mechanisms were geared for WW2 aircraft, which flew at no more than around 150 to 200 mph when on attack runs.
The P-51 could reach speeds up to nearly 450 mph.
a10 isn't much faster, esp. carrying a war load. it's not a high performance jet. its top speed is actually slower than some WWII fighters.
@@oldfrend also you don't need that much tracking if it's coming right at you. And frequent turning means more risk time spent inside enemy AA range for fewer shots in target.
@@bostonrailfan2427 Belgrano was sunk by torpedoes, not missiles. And modern anti-ship missiles are not designed to sink WWII ships, nor purpose-built for armor penetration either. An exocet or harpoon missile would not penetrate the heavily armored parts of a battleship.
@@crownprincesebastianjohano7069 Mostly true, but they would wreak havoc on the com and targeting systems - which could make an otherwise moderate to heavy armored ship useless and defensless. Other AA systems and deck guns, fittings, and ammo lockers would also be either destroyed or rendered inoperable, not to mention the terrible attrition among gun crews. Modern guided bombs would certainly penetrate the decks of most WW2 ships, exploding below. SInking a ship is not the only criteria for success.
On the flip side, an A-10 is vulnerable to manually aimed AA fire because of its large size and slow flight. 20mm and 40mm Bofors would do a lot of damage with just a few hits out of thousands.
seems like unrealistically accurate AA fire for a WW2 era surface combatant to me but what do i know.
The AA in beyond OP, I have never understood it but secondary guns on a BB hit 1 out of every 150 shells...
That was insane fun! Couldn’t rip my eyes from the screen 😳 loved the idea and the range of weapons used with one of my favourite planes! Totally cool thanks so much especially after a hard day’s work 😅😁😉👍👊
That was a battlecruiser, not a battleship. In either case, it would be a no win situation for the ship. A10's have a different method of attack, not to mention greater speed and maneuverability compared to their WW2 era counterparts.
I noticed that none of the scenarios involved the use of an air to mud missile with a tac nuke warhead.
Care to share where the Germans called the Scharnorst a battlecruiser? Oh, don't tell me, armchair historians know more about ships than the people that actually built them.
@@Ravege98
Look up BATTLE WINNING Tanks, Aircraft & Warships of World War 2 by David Miller... page 120. Also, the correct spelling is Scharnhorst.... you forgot the other 'h' . In some readings, they were known as capital ships, but they were used in commerce raids for the most part. When they came across actual battleships, they always declined to engage because of their limited range of fire from the smaller main gun batteries of 11". True battleships of that era had a minimum of 14" main guns for the British, 15" for the Germans, up to 16" for Americans, and up to 18" for the Japanese dependent upon class.They, Scharnhorst and her sister ship Gneisenau, were to get upgraded to 15", but this never happened. Battleships are based on placement of heavy armor, and gun displacement. The only true battleships used by the Kriegsmarine, were the Bismarck and Tirpitz. However, in aesthetic beauty and size for a very heavy battlecruiser, Scharnhorst is one of my favorite designs. 👍
@@markhamrick9078 How many ships did the Musashi fire on? If none, I guess she’s not a battleship? One does not define a ship by what it ends up doing, otherwise there are very few battleships at all.
“True battleships”, therefore, is a very subjective and poor way to describe a ship. In all contemporary literature, the Kriegsmarine *always* described the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau as battleships. Are you or your authors more authoritative sources?
@@Ravege98
Design, by definition, is the reason for why something is built. Musashi and her sister ship Yamato, were truly impressive battleships, even though their purpose to engage other battleships never came to fruition. Ironic that the Japanese brought about the demise of the battleship and the importance of air power with their attack on Pearl Harbor. Aircraft carriers became the new capital ships, whereas battleships had a new role in ship to shore naval bombardments for landing craft, as well as protecting the carriers from aircraft with their heavy aa armaments.
The Kriegsmarine had planned on having more time to build up and test new ship/propulsion designs, and even wanted carriers, but were rushed into service by Hitler's starting the war a couple of years ahead of schedule.... against his military leader's strong objections of course. The Scharnhorst, if by just looking at the specs/gross tonnage, could be classified as a battleship, and had they refitted it with 15" guns as planned, would've increased the tonnage and firepower to true battleship standards. They would've then engaged in ship to ship with the British I'm sure, instead of being the commerce raiders of which they were actually very good at. It's all a moot point anyway, as aircraft carriers became the standard measure of a countries true military power.
By the video, the best line of attack is to the front of the ship. There appears to be the least amount of AA fire in the direction. Also low level at about 50m, firing directly at the bridge and control section.
The 30mm rounds from the A-10 have a punch equivalent to a WW2 round twice its size. The A-10 is also able to launch Hellfire missiles with fire n forget guidance systems at a 2 - 5 km range. This would be outside the range of the AA batteries on the ship.
A 60mm gun would still do nothing against the armor of a battleship.
wwII ship aa was 2 to 7 km range, the lighter guns to 2 km, the heavier aa to 7 km.
@@ribbitgoesthedoglastnamehe4681 windows on the bridge aren't plated, still glass.
@@SuperChuckRaney So, break some windows and run away, and call it a victory?
In the best case you kill the captain. In which case the ship continues working from the secondary bridge situated deep in the citadel.
Beethoven's moonlightight sonata's 3rd movement as a soundtrack to this is priceless!
最後音と合わさって爆弾が着弾するのかっけぇ
Lol!
If a 1931 Swordfish torpedoe bi-plane could knock out the Bismark, then imagine what a Warthog could do.
The Swordfish is better equipped, though. Torpedoes are much more effective than bombs against a battleship.
Not a Bismarck more like a Scharnost or Gneisenau
WP ....................Swordfish with that blazing 85 mph speed and those devilish 303 machine guns ????
@@dannycalley7777 The torpedo is the important part.
The armor was 13 inches at the water line and vital areas above the weather deck. But the weather deck was only 2 inches So the GAU would have no problem boring holes there.
Take out the pointy end 1st and to for the after end. Might get lucky with the pointy end and hit the gun magazine. The aft end has the gear reduction, rudder control and prop shafts.
カミカゼA-10の急降下攻撃もアレだが、戦艦の対空防御力スゴ😱
あの砂漠の悪魔A-10をワンパンかよ🤔
やっぱりA-10は砂漠でゲリラを追い回している時が１番輝いているね😉
Причем чтоб у партизан небыло пзрк.. иначе...
The fighter could stand off at long range and hit the battleship with missiles and not be shot down.
Crossing the T still works with an airplane that's basically a gun platform. Coming in low from the front or rear delivering raking fire would destroy most AA on this old thing. Fight over.
Yes, but modern air-to-sea missiles (such as Harpoon or Exocet) are ill-prepared to deal with highly armored targets such as WW2-era battleships. Simply because there are none today. Not to mention peashooters like Mavericks, which are more suited to destroy tanks, APCs and so on.
Dumb bombs would probably work best (the bigger the better). Or laser-guided bombs - which are basically dumb bombs with laser-guidance kit attached. Those provide some stand-off capability, too.
Larger missiles (like Tomahawks or ALCMs) could work as well, simply because they provide a bigger boom. And can be launched from hundreds of miles away. But since they are so big, these are mostly ship-launched. Well, B-52 can carry some. :)
@@ammarmar3628 I don't know much strategy, but there is little reason to target the hull with a missile. There are other more vulnerable areas, like the rudders.
@@rutabagasteu That would be a really lucky shot. Guided munition is accurate but not that accurate. And rudder itself is underwater, which makes it very hard to hit. Also, rudder mechanisms on a battleship are one of the most heavily protected areas, armor-wise.
@@ammarmar3628 Bismark was hit by a torpedo, jamming the rudder.
I recently toured a WW2 destroyer and the guide was a retired naval officer who told me that the AA of that time was highly ineffective. They lucky to hit the planes of that era never mind a modern jet power attack air craft with modern guided weaponry. I think an A-10 would make quick work of a WW2 battleship
The only creditable AA was the 5 inch with the proximity fuses.
@@bobjoned3398 they made up for inaccuracy through sheer fucking volume
I loved the way the tail just fell off the A10. That was pure comedy gold right there
Despite what all the arm-chair generals tell you, AA fire was extremely effective, it's just the Germans and Japanese both refused to invest in adequate amounts for their ships. Generally, all the members of the "Battleships are completely outclassed by carriers" crowd point to the same handful of cases where swarms of carrier fighters/bombers picked off lone battleships with the worst AA coverage of their time (which, to be fair, the Scharnhorst counts among). It should tell you something that the US used the IOWA class post WW2 to great effect, both in the Korean War when jet fighters were just beginning to show up to the fight and during Vietnam when BVR was becoming a thing. Like, they were obsolete no doubt and have no real place in US navy doctrine, but they aren't _useless_ or somehow more vulnerable to aircraft fire than any other ship- in fact as the previous two wars mentioned they are probably the hardest ships for planes to destroy.
I digress. Of all the modern jet aircraft you could use against a battleship, the A10 is the worst. The GAU-8 fires 6,000 rounds of 30mm armor-penetrating depleted uranium shells which can penetrate about 38mm of rolled homogenous at 1000 meters. The thinnest deck armor on the Scharnhorst is 50mm- and that's in the non-critical spots where a penetrating shell won't hit anything even remotely valuable. Like of all the planes you could have brought to this fight, you chose the _one_ modern jet whose primary weapon system is limited to scratching the paint on the side. Sure it can carry other things but anything it can carry something else could, and have done a better job at it too.
A more effective weapon to use against this thing is, idk _any_ ASM? And one of those would be better delivered by IDK, _anything else that doesn't have rotors_ ?
Still a cool video though
Even using the AGM-65 would be better than just making a straight line strafing run.
@Exelerant HD Oh look one of the armchair generals I was referring too. I'm fairly certain you're being at least a bit sarcastic, but I'll respond as if you aren't for the purpose of argument.
First of all, my claim was not they weren't obsolete, it was just that they weren't useless or particularly vulnerable to carriers. In fact I went on to specify that I thought they were obsolete.
Next, when I said "Generally, all the members of the 'Battleships are completely outclassed by carriers' crowd point to the same handful of cases where swarms of carrier fighters/bombers picked off lone battleships with the worst AA coverage of their time" yeah the Yamato is what I was talking about. Despite your claims, the Yamato-class (so including the Musashi) did not, in fact, have "powerful AA defences" nor was the class the "most powerful battleship of the time"- it was just the biggest. The Yamato was laid down in 1937 full of obsolete technology and design flaws and built out of shit steel. Despite having a belt four inches thicker than the Iowa, it offered less protection. Despite having guns 2 inches bigger than the Iowa, they had less penetration. Despite being 20,000 tons larger than the Iowa, it had a third of the AA guns- and those guns were considered some of the worst AA in WW2. Oh, and it didn't have enough AA directors, which were also shit.
Not to mention the Yamato itself wasn't actually sunk in fleet action, it was sent alone on a suicide mission mostly to ensure it's destruction so no one else could have it- also as a hail mary for an honorable and glorious death.
The Musashi was still rocking that anemic, terrible AA when it was sunk in an engagement against four carriers launching 257 planes. It still took 19 torpedos, 17 bombs, and 9 hours to sink the bitch, during which time it managed to limp half-way back to shore (either to beach it or ensure it sank in shallow water for recovery purposes). Might have made it too, if the engine hadn't given out (after the battle was done of course).
In comparison, consider the British and US Battleships which focused heavily on AA coverage and quality, using the revolutionary proximity fuse AA shell and bofors quad 40mm. The British lost Three Battleships and Two Battlecruisers in WW2, one of each was to aircraft. The US lost none, despite using their Battleships specifically as AA platforms to guard high-priority carriers (not including Pearl Harbor of course) . And again, despite the Iowa-class being used in Korea, Vietnam, and _in 1992 in Iraq_ not a single one has been lost.
It's also important to note that the Pacific favors the use of Carriers. It's a much larger ocean and the infrastructure of the island bases wasn't as well developed, so land-based aircraft couldn't do as much. In the Atlantic, carriers lose a bit of importance because land-based heavy fighters (and in the channel and north sea, regular fighters) can realistically take care of air superiority and land-based bombers can take care of naval bombing. Since land-based aircraft are flatly superior to carrier-based aircraft, carriers are relegated to a supporting role. Still crucial, but conceivably there are situations where you'd prefer a battleship over a carrier in the Atlantic.
So you see, it's not that Battleships were inherently worse than carriers- it's just the data is cherry picked to fit that narrative. As I mentioned before, we're talking about a handful of cases where swarms of aircraft picked off (admittedly not always) lone battleships with the worst AA coverage of their time. Of course, carriers are still superior all-around, but they don't completely outclass battleships in every way and turn them into wastes of space.
As for there being no modern battleships... there sort of is? The _Kirov_ class is around that size. The Soviets and Russians call it a "heavy guided missile cruiser" but then again they insist the Kiev-class is a "heavy aviation cruiser" instead of an aircraft carrier. Mostly for political purposes but I digress. The point is, the US recommissioned the Iowa-class specifically to deal with the Kirov. Perhaps it was political, perhaps they actually thought they needed something other than a carrier, I'm not sure which. Either way, it's more than twice as big as the US equivalent of a "heavy guided missile cruiser" the nuclear powered Virginia class.
Ah, lastly, you want to know something Ironic? That one time a battleship sunk a carrier you mentioned? The Battleship in question was the Scharnhorst- the very ship in this video. It also had pretty outdated AA. Not as crap as the Yamato mind you, but I mean their 37mms were manually loaded, so that should say enough.
You are *also* an arm-chair admiral, you know, so your opinions don't carry more weight than anyone else's.
@@tonyennis1787 First of all, I never claimed that I wasn't. Second of all, I never claimed that they did. Whether or not to believe my entirely unprofessional opinion is up to you.
Consider this though: if you aren't an admiral, and I'm not an admiral- then your doubts carry no more weight than my assertations.
Of course if you _are_ an admiral, I would love to hear your opinion on this topic and why you (presumably) disagree with my assessment.
Music Selection sublime
Use of flares ridiculously hilarious, and instantly punished!
imagine what the scharnhorst crew must have been thinking about that crazily weird plane
Your choice of music was spot on, absolutely perfect.
Hmmmm…the A-10, one of the most insanely maneuverable planes out there, flies straight in so the AA guns can easily find their target!
Yeah approach runs. Predictable is not it.
Not manuverble
レパートリーの多さに驚愕
An impressive simulation. I am reminded of a display by GB Navy, during one of the official celebrations of a recent Queen's birthdays there. It was commented that that then and their British Navy was only about a third the physical size of the GB's Navy or less, but packed five times the firepower of the WW2 GB Navy.
Nice. I was beginning to think you were unable to sink her without losing the A-10.
時代が違くても戦艦には変わりない耐久力！
もっと瞬殺されると思ってたからシャルンホルスト意外と強い事に驚き
We need antiship rocket
戦艦は段違い
4:10 エスコン感凄い
It’s the munitions not the plane I reckon from the stand off range the A10 should be fine the swordfish bomber had the right tools ie torpedoes not weapons designed for tanks! Great video
Torpedoes are much more powerful than bombs, though.
Perhaps an A10 attack to support the swordfish torpedos. Now there would be a contrast in tech.
The A10 Warthog is truly the devil incarnate. Thanks for you show of skill
An actual A-10 wouldn't come apart that easily, in my opinion.
A 105mm hit would do some serious damage, and the wings don’t have much if any armor. Then again, a direct hit isn’t as likely. Guess it depends on how close the shell bursts.
@@PhantomP63 something with tungsten shrapnel maybe? Still.. There are countless accounts of A-10's returning from a long ground support mission riddled with damage and the pilot's were surprised the aircraft didn't respond adversely..
@@yourdrummer2034 It’s an amazing plane for sure, and looks fun to fly too!
@@PhantomP63 it's a phenomenon, really. Usually if bureaucracy has it's way, it doesn't matter how well it works, it gets replaced. The A-10 works too well and is irreplaceable. They US was trying to replace the plane with the F 35 in the close air support role. Congress laughed at the defence contractors saying the F 35 could do what the A-10 does cheaper and better.
@@yourdrummer2034 and A-10 actually works
Deploying flares even though the Scharnhorst had no heat seeking weaponry. Nice Touch.
1:33 Releasing flares is of absolutely no use against AA rounds - they're ballistic, not heat seeking 😉
I'm not using flares as a real countermeasure. Since I can only escape, I use it as a resistance at least (it has no effect) It was beautiful when viewed from the replay, so I recorded it.
@@WT_Wolf gotcha - yes, for visual affect they do look spectacular 😊😊
Love it, so we're talking hypotheticals here so what if the Scharnhorst were sailing with the Bismark and the aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin which could easily have happened, the two battleships would have thrown up a wall of flak, but lets throw the Bf 109's in from the Graf Zeppelin, the A10 is coming in at a typical strafing run at around 300 - 350 mph that just about allows the 109 an intercept in a dive, the two 7.62mm MG's might not trouble the armoured A10 to much but the two 20mm cannons would definately wake the A10 driver up when bits started falling off, great video
we could just assume it blew up on the flight deck too.
一発で戦艦が撃沈するのは凄いとしか言えねぇ
I was expecting the A-10 to cackle evilly and twirl it's long, waxed mustachio.
レッド・オクトーバーを追え!を思い出しました。あっちは低空侵入でレーダー探知外からフライパスしただけだったような気が?
魚雷が欲しいですねぇ。モーラーの3本の倍で6本くらいでしょうか？
うぽつです。
もしできれば、機関砲だけでドレだけ喰えるか見てみたいです
Wouldn't the depleted uranium cannon shells turn the Scharnhorst into a sieve?
German naval flak batteries couldn't deal with sub 200 mph biplanes effectively in that era. And A10 would likely never have sustained a single hit.
So true. Bismarck was their top of the line ship. It was attacked and crippled by obsolete WWI Fairey Swordfish biplanes with a maximum airspeed of only 95 mph. The targeting computers on Bismarck failed to down a single plane. They switched to "splash down" method, firing in the plane's path hoping the geyser would stop them. That defense failed too.
It was actually more an issue because of how slow the planes were travelling, the fire control radars overestimated their speed as it thought no plane could fly that slow and therefore most firing solutions flew harmlessly infront of the swordfish and the shells that did hit, due to the swordfish being made of canvas and not aluminium like most planes of the day the shell wouldn't detonate and instead punch straight through without punching more than a small hole that was shrugged off as opposed to say blowing off a wing like it should've, had newer planes been used it's likely a good few would've been shot down but thanks to the swordfish being the most obsolete yet effective plane ever built, being almost 20 years obsolete when it was first designed and built it actually did it some favours, same with the raid on taranto against the Italians
It's all a video training program..It's Not REAL
I'm impressed that WW2 AA guns could track and hit a plane going at jet speed.
The A-10 goes around 700, maybe 750km/h at best, WWII Planes (Props) Managed that aswell, the Me 262 could go even beyond 800 and the Me 163 supposedly passed 1000km/h. So yeah, nothing unsual. additionally, planes at that altitude and weight definetly dont reach that top speed
The A10 should attack at night. It has night vision equipment. The ship would be helpless at night. They would hear it but never see it coming.
All they'd hear is the Brrt then silence. . .
@@NicPTheMeme The rounds land before the sound of the shooting arrives...
Great choice of Classical music playing during the video, moonlight sonata 3rd movement. Very enjoyable video.
Thank you for watching!^^
If the Battleship Scharnhorst had modern 64 bit computers, modern AESA radars and long range anti air missiles. The A-10 won't have a single chance to drop GBU-8.
Then it would be a rather different ship. It's hard to believe the actual Scharnhorst's AAA suite would have been as effective as it is shown in the video.
@@kennethkellogg6556 yep, especially after the Gatling gun suppressed/destroyed many of the lightly protected AA positions, of which there were not enough to begin with
@@kennethkellogg6556 Upgraded Missouri did saw service in 1991 Gulf War where majority of it's time were launching cruise missiles and firing it's main guns.
@@ReviveHF And it had SIX radar-guided 20mm SEAWIZ/Phalanx Systems (aka R2-D2 with a hardon) to protect itself.
シャルンホルスト「戦艦が簡単に沈むか!」
The A-10 carrying capacity is fully capable of carrying anti-ship missiles and MK-48 torpedoes. And the Japanese Type 96 anti-aircraft gun simply could not penetrate the armor of the A-10.
While the gun is what we most associate with the A-10, it can also carry 16,000 lbs of precision guided bombs that it can deploy from far out of the range of the Scharnhorst's AA defense. Afterward, they can strafe the sinking hulk.
Strafe the hull - you don't want to risk getting caught for that.
Intenionally killing seamen from a mission killed warship isn't if i understand the RoE for USAF legal.
It would basically mean that the opponent can now declare : all american servicemen in need of help is NOW illegal combatant.
I'm sure Beethoven had this exact scenario in mind when he wrote the third movement of the Moonlight Sonata!
Wait, ammunition has to be 30mm, right?
Torpedo attacks are at the waterline. Can't the A-10 guided weapons go for the waterline?
Yes, a laser-guided Maverick could hit the waterline from out to 25km away and will penetrate MORE THAN 1,000mm (39.4") of RHA Armor. The blast would be small though. You'd have to put all 10 missiles into the hull. Each one only has a 125lb shaped-charge warhead.
滑空爆弾が高度を下げるにつれて、それっぽく迎え角を変えてるけど、
まさか真面目に空力計算してるの？
Got to respect the British Navy pilots who attacked ships like the Bismarck in fabric covered biplanes.
これ、弾薬庫に上手く当てればA10一機で戦艦4隻やれてしまうのか．．．
無誘導爆弾で行ければ戦艦6隻撃沈も狙えそう…
I doubt that a battleship could keep bulls-eyeing the a10, but I also doubt the a10 could sink a battleship unless it got a very lucky shot on the ammo storage. The biggest ordnance used in the simulation are only equivalent in weight to a typical battleship shell, and battleships were specifically armoured to withstand shells of that size.
A10s CAN carry up to 2,000lb bombs on each of their 7 pylons. The Small-Diameter Bomb is a 250lb or 500lb armor-piercing wind-corrected glide munition designed for bunker busting. They'd slice right through that ship.
Interesting. I would think a squadron attack at low level with 2 to 6 planes and rockets would be most effective. Sterilize the decks. then do the dive bombing with the dumb bombs. I found the flares put out by one of the first a10s amusing. Ships didn't have infrared tracking tech at this time. They barely had radar. Of course if you have one anomaly (the A10) you can have another.
No, low level with multiple planes is not the most effective attack, in my opinion. That one guided bomb from one high altitude striker was all the kinetic action necessary to obliterate the entire warship. That kill shot low of it's forward gun turret penetrated into its wooden deck, blew the ammunition reserves below the turret, as well as everything else below decks that was explosive, compromising all internal bulkheads and armour, and definitely the hull below sea level enough to ensure its new occupation as a reef.
I balked out lout when that first a-10's left wing just sheered off without it flinching. Damn I love this air frame. It represents hope for the future in a present of multibillion dollar pavement princesses for me.
They couldn't hit a 130mph torpedo biplane and you have them knocking down A10's!!!!! RIIIIIGHT!
I wish the A-10 was equipped with a torpedo. Since it is a ground attack aircraft, its armament is limited.
レーザー誘導爆弾最強。そういえば現代の対艦ミサイルだと大戦中の戦艦の艤装は破壊できるけど装甲は抜けないとか。
装甲は抜けなくても上部構造耕してしまえば無力化できます。
@@user-lc9zx4bg3z
主砲周りや、司令塔は、装甲で囲まれているので、ある程度の戦闘、航行能力は残りますよ。主砲塔にも、測距儀があるので制限されますが照準もできますし。なので装甲を抜かないと無力化は難しいですよ。航空機相手には無力になりますが。(対空装備を失うので)
@@user-xt5hh1sx4h
測距儀は装甲化できないので、耕してしまえば最後は目測のみになります。耕せる弾数と火力があればの話ですが。
因みに大戦中には、三式弾で耕した戦艦が居たり。（無力化した程度で航行不能にすらできてないが）
@@user-lc9zx4bg3z
測距儀もある程度装甲化されていましたよ。それにレンズ周りも装甲カバーがついていたので(使わない時は閉じてる)測距儀自体に直撃しないと、砲塔側測距儀の無効化は困難では。
小さい測距儀に直撃させれるだけの弾数を当てたのならそもそもの主砲の砲身自体が破壊されてそうです。
@@七宮まみ
ぶち抜けるミサイルもありますけどね。
ロシアのクラブとか。
まぁ、普通はサーモバリックや焼夷弾あたりでもぶつけて艦橋内の人焼きに行くので精一杯でしょうね。
"How many flares should I drop?"
"Yes."
Sharnhorst did not have AA capabilities like that. The A10 would have engaged at a much further distance, using missiles, which would have done a huge amount of damage. There is also the A10's ability to high altitude bomb a target...enough said.
This is just Chinese propaganda....
@@andrewsmith2502 lmao this is a japanese channel tho. How tf it's a chinese propaganda
Omg dude dont be so serious this is just a game :)
You had me cheering for that ending. Thanks for sharing 👍🏻❤️Best of luck 🍀
戦艦1隻とA-10一機がトントンってどういうこと…
Today's plane-based weapons systems make it possible to acquire targets and destroy them from a relatively safe distance. As fearsome as the A-10's rapid-fire gun is in ground-support missions, I think a few well-placed anti-ship missiles would be the better choice, in this imaginary case.
I doubt a WW2 era Battleships AA guns could track an A10 effectively.
They would not have fire tables for A-10. And it's also stupid to fly into a ship's barrage zone if I have longer-range weapons.
Why come in from a high angle? Coming in low masks half of the AA guns. All of the A-10 videos I've seen was a short burst then peel away.
As it was it was difficult to track and hit kamikaze 5yrs later in the East. Also both the attacker and the attacked are moving. Difficult at best without our present day radar systems.
i doubt an A-10 would be very effective at sinking a battlecruiser. unless its the best luck ever, the bomb will just light it on fire and "inconvenience" the crew
@@wembozandco.807 I doubt that 20 and 30 millimeter cannon rounds would do very much to sink the cruiser...maybe take out the bridge. But there is redundancies for things like that. However a laser guided 1000 pound bomb or two at the waterline could be devastating.
10機程度であらゆる方向から同時に攻撃を加えるとどうなるかなぁ🤔
流石…空飛ぶタンクキラー…
美しいバルカン砲の音だ……（末期）
Thank you for your acknowledgement.
I can only imagine what the GAU 30mm would have done to a WW2 battleship.
Depends on the thickness of the belt armor, which on some battleships was up to 406mm, so even the GAU-8 rounds likely would have done little to no damage on the main armor belt, or the main gun turrets. However, the upperworks of the ship and smaller secondary battery mounts would be a lot more susceptible to those 30mm rounds. Hard to do much when everything above the main deck is Swiss cheese and ammo in the secondary batteries starts cooking off.
Not much, really. The vital areas of the ship would never be in danger.
The 30mm would have turned the battleship's AA gun crews into hamburger from beyond a range where they (at least the 20mms) could even hit her. That would be as she was following in either [8] 500lb bombs or [4] 2,000lb bombs that most likely would have been fitted as wind-corrected glide bombs (released from up to 50km away) from her wing pylons.
As she passed over the Battleship (now dealing with MULTIPLE laser-guided bomb strikes) she would strafe the AA to suppress them before releasing 16 Small-Diameter Bombs from her underbelly rack. Those 250lb GPS-Guided bombs would punch right through the ship's superstructure, destroying whatever the 500lb/2,000lb bombs didn't.
The Battleship wouldn't stand a chance since the A10 could release her payload from 50km away. More likely though, the A10 would do this from 20km away because the ship is moving. To compensate for target movement, the A10 would use laser-guided munitions to sink the ship (which have better accuracy against moving targets).
Keep in mind that a single A10 carries the same number of munitions as HALF of a SQUADRON of US NAVY Avenger Dive Bombers.
@@swaghauler8334 Like I said, you would not destroy any vital parts. You would make mincemeat of crews in the open and probably wreck most of the superstructure, but the systems that make the ship stay in one piece would not be compromised. The bombs lack the armor piercing capability to threaten either the machinery or the magazines.
Swarms of A-10s would eventually overwhelm a battleship, but a single one wouldn't be able to sink under typical conditions.
@@swaghauler8334 SH ..................that's the facts !!!!!
The General Electric GAU-8/A Avenger is a 30 mm hydraulically driven seven-barrel Gatling-style autocannon that is typically mounted in the United States Air Force's Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II.
My first target would have been the maneuvering controls of the ship; ie the rudder. Then approach from the stern and, skimming the surface at sixty degrees, rake the AA guns from both sides. Once she is "dead in the water" with no threat to aircraft it should be easier take out the turrets and superstructure.
Good idea but using different speeds of the four screws? That can be used for turning. Not as well, but not DIW
@@jeffreyleonard7210 German ships had a hell of time with that. Just look at Bismarck. Her rudder was jammed and that was all she wrote.
OK I laughed out loud when I saw the A-10 pilot trying to protect himself from AA gunfire with flares!
I didn't do that seriously, haha. Party goods flare
Anyone who knows their history knows that when attacking a WW2 BS, you go in as low as possible.
That's how 8 Swordfish Biplanes got in so close to the Bismarck without any losses.
The Swordfish were slower than the AA Radar director system could handle. That left the gunners using optical sights only.
@atomicsnarl
True. They were also highly non-reflective as well which only compounded that.
My point is the Bismarks AA guns were primarily designed for modern mid- to high level attacks and not the sea-skimming levels the slow Swordfish could only attain for their attacks.
Don't get me wrong though, luck had a LOT to do with it.
音楽へのリンクをお願いします
Translation: link to the music please
Thank you for watching! Information on the song is posted in the summary column.
(共同とはいえ)戦艦沈めた事があるパイロットの助言を取り入れて開発された機体だからまあ…
The only thing that frustrated me was watching the “stick operator” target the control tower with guided bombs instead of the hill or the main guns.
A-10「12000lbの火の弾をアバー！！」
翼もがれながらもGAU-8発射するのすこ
The A-10's weapons wouldn't penetrate the ship's armor, and the ship's AA couldn't track the A-10. It's a no win. Even though the A-10 could attack out of effective range of the ship's AA, without legitimate armor piercing weapons (tank armor doesn't come close to the armor on WWII heavy cruisers and battleships). The A-10 is designed as an anti-personnel and anti-tank ground attack bomber, a battle cruiser is a completely different league. The only thing the Scharnhorst could hope for is an extremely lucky spray and pray hit on the A-10 as the crew and her equipment would be completely outclassed by the A-10's speed and maneuverability.
Can you imagine standing on the deck, and the guy next to you gets sprayed by 30mm? That'd be PTSD for life.
Why can't an A-10's weapons penetrate that ship's armor? The Maverick laser-guided AT missile will penetrate 1100mm of RHA tank armor... that's 43 INCHES of plate steel. The 250lb Small Diameter Bomb will penetrate more than a METER of reinforced concrete or 25 inches of RHA. Even an Iowa class could be pierced by modern AT weapons.
The idea of 30mm Gatling is not that a single hit is likely to do a significant damage. The idea is to get ~5 hits on a target the size of a tank. On a battlecruiser, A-10 is likely to achieve hundreds of hits for each volley.
You have never seen an A-10's rounds in action then. They don't just penetrate a tank's armor, they blow through the whole tank. Armor, engine, crew and exit out the out the other side usually. And each time a round hits something it creates shrapnel that causes more damage. The best way to attack would have been to get on the deck behind the ship, use the 30mm to disable turning and propulsion. Strafe just at or below the waterline causing leaks along one whole side of the ship. You don't have to blow big holes in the hull, just crack it. A bomb just at the waterline will do the same thing. Compression to create cracks, and let water in.
Most of the readers are to young to care but I used to play a A-10s over Cuba game back in the middle 1990’s on Windows 95.
One mission was to sink a ship right off the shore of the air-force base.
マーベリックの時にエースコンバットAHの黒海のミッションを思い出した
懐かしい
あのチャフ撒かないとイージスシステムも真っ青な迎撃力発揮するスラヴァ級すこ
Magnificent work of art. Good job on the video!
結論…
戦艦を沈めるには爆弾が有効
対艦ミサイルjk
HWT「俺の勝ち！」
当たり前
戦艦が対空射撃で巡航速度でも時速560kmは出るジェット機に、当時の技術で直撃させるのは凄い‼️
まぁゲームだからな～
実際問題を言うとアパッチが１６キロくらいで艦橋撃ち抜く事が可能なので……沈没は不可能でも、上級士官は……居なくなる……後はわかるな……Ａ１０で視認距離で戦う理由は………無いに等しい……
I'm sure Beethoven had this exact scenario in mind when he wrote the third movement of the Moonlight Sonata.
シャルンホルストってこんなに対空強いの？！
アメリカ艦隊より対空強くて草。
Attacking a ship with cannon and without JDAMS and anti-tank cluster bombs is nutty!
Just having fun
さすがはガングート沈めたルーデルの子孫だ