That said, I want to address something you’ve mentioned recently-about how some viewers are requesting shorter, more streamlined videos, while you prefer your longer, uncut style. I understand where you’re coming from. Long-form content allows for a more authentic experience, showing the trial and error of gameplay, and that’s part of what makes your channel unique. But as much as this style resonates with some of us, it’s also worth recognizing the value of adapting to viewer preferences. Balancing Viewer Expectations with Your Vision Your fans are not asking you to compromise the integrity of your content-they simply want it to be more accessible. Here are a few suggestions that could help strike a balance between your artistic vision and viewer satisfaction: Consider a Two-Format Approach: You could create two types of content: Long-Form Gameplay: Keep these videos for your core audience who love the unfiltered experience. Highlight Reels: Edit condensed versions of your gameplay for viewers who want quick, action-packed recaps. This way, you cater to both casual and dedicated fans. Engage Directly with Your Fans: Poll your audience to get a clearer picture of what they want. You might find that they’re happy with minor adjustments, like adding timestamps or providing a brief overview at the start of your videos. Optimize Without Compromising: Editing doesn’t mean sacrificing authenticity. If you spend an hour on mistakes, maybe trim those down to the most relevant or funniest parts. It’s not about removing the struggle-it’s about presenting it efficiently. Use Live Streams for Uncut Content: Live streaming your unedited gameplay might be the best way to cater to your hardcore fans. Those who love the long sessions can join live, and you can upload shorter versions afterward for everyone else. Why Adapt? I know the fear of losing fans can be daunting, but adapting doesn’t mean abandoning your style. By showing that you’re willing to listen and evolve, you strengthen your bond with your audience. The reality is that viewers have limited time and numerous options, and being flexible helps you stay competitive while preserving the core of what makes your channel special. In the end, your viewers come to your channel for the content and for you. While change might feel like a risk, it’s also an opportunity to grow without alienating the fans who’ve supported you from the start.
Thanks Shady. Appreciated. I'm going to start advertising the larger uncut battles as "LIVE BATTLES", with a disclaimer at the start. So that way, even before watching the viewer knows what to expect and they don't waste 90 mins of their time if they don't like the live battles.
no its fucxking borin the dcs content was so much better it was faster more detailed more action kept us heavily entertained this is so slow and boring i love caps videos and will always support and watch them but i noticed i have to fast forward and skip when he does sea power
Shadyshadow: You don't speak for "the fans", no-one made you the representative of channel viewers. Cap: audience capture is a toxic trend and no-one creative ever thrived for long blowing around in the breeze of what non-paying viewers say they want
This is actually a contest of Sandbox vs Tomahawk/Harpoon, not ship vs ship. The Iowa has 48 anti ship missiles and the captain would know how well defended the Slava was, and fire an overwhelming amount of missiles. The AI in this game is *really* bad, and you get the result you got here.
OP did say that this would be unfair if he shot off all missiles with the AI not reacting the same way. But by your own logic, the soviet captain would know how dangerous the Iowa's 48 anti ship missiles are and fire off all of his missiles out of range of our Tomahawks/Harpoons. Almost anybody can win against anybody if the conditions are faverable. This series is more of a comparison of the AI combat power than any sort of realism as in reality similar ships don't target each other, don't sail alone, and it's more of a cat and mouse game.
@@AntonVolnov Cap said that he can't get the AI to react the same way because he doesn't even understand how the game works. If you go into debug mode and hit F10 you can change sides in the middle of the fight. In reality both ships would fire all their missiles a once, and this would be a tie 100 times out of 100. Every single time. Also, the USN ECM is not working in the current version of the game.
@@AntonVolnov BGM-109B TASM is also a very long range missile. Neither one of these ships would ever see each other at maximum range anyway. And no one wants to sit here and wait for the tomahawks to fly 250 nautical miles, I assure you. But just for the record, from 23nm to 0: Iowa wins every time. From 24nm to 250nm: Tie every time. From 251nm to 300nm: Slava wins every time.
Iowa's never went anywhere without escort for a reason: They have no fixed ASW capability and their AA is more of an afterthought in modern terms. The bottom line is that Iowa's can't shoot down $hit. If I were to pit Iowa's against Slava's, I would give proper escorts to both groups. I suspect that in this scenario a single Iowa with three Adam's class destroyers as an AA screen would fare better than four Iowa's.
He literally said “proper escorts for BOTH groups” 🤦♂️🙄 And he’s right, the Iowas are still capital ships, even in the 1980s, they’d be escorted much like a carrier. Still, I don’t think the armor is well modeled in this game. Most modern anti-ship weapons wouldn’t do much against BATTLESHIP armor, because… well… they never would need to. Most modern ships are just tin cans. Iowas were designed to protect against ~16-18” AP shells weighing as much as a small car. Regardless, this result is a bit ridiculous. As was recently shown, even primitive weapons can defeat these Russian ships given their state of readiness and training.
@@EstorilEm Yup, I meant proper escorts for both groups, ie a Slava with escorts against an Iowa with escorts. What we've seen in Ukraine is that Slava's can't shoot down $hit either. And, I agree with what you said about the armor modeling. I was stunned when three hits on the citadel destroyed a battleship. It's like the armor wasn't even there. I've seen photos of a battleship (cruiser?) that was hit in the citadel by a kamikaze with an 1,100lb bomb strapped to it: It left an airplane-shaped scorch mark on the armor and buckled a few plates - that was it. I remember playing games with the Soviets in the 80s. A new crew quality and readiness category needs to be added for those guys in any gaming scenario: Drunk AF.
At the end? The turn? It was so that the rifle barrels of the 16 inchers depressed far enough to allow them to hit the Slava's at close range. If more range is needed, they turn HARD, the other way -- allowing for the turret 'mean angle' to change and allow for a greater distance. The 'bad' part of this is that they can only 'hold' this positioning for a limited amount of time in that the ship itself, will head off to the wrong course. Kind of a "quick" 'snap shot'.
Good point! I thought it was just because the Iowas were trying to get to their prefered battle range. Which is, let's say a bit further out.😂 I mean the distances in the galleon battle would've been short even for early dreadnoughts.
As a native Iowan, I am always proud of the Iowa class even if its time is past. We don’t get much mention outside of presidential elections, corn and pigs.
I don't know how you expected any result other than what you got. The 'refit' BB's were never meant to be alone against missile cruisers and lack not only defensive SAMs, but a radar that can track and engage more than 1 target at a time. They are part of a system in which they are the support role. If you wanted more of an apple to apple comparison you have to put the Slava vs the Tico. The Tico can attack and defend as it can track 30 targets and engage 24 simultaneously at 40 miles. By the late 80's, in direct response to the Slava, they were capable of 130 mile Harpoons and 90 mile SAMs.
@ I’m saying he’s calling bias when it benefits Russia but not when it benefits the United States, I understand it is quite preposterous to try to use a game in development as that key but your surmise for why this person is doing this is about as good as mine
This is a tournament style series where each ship fights its closest rival in armament and tonnage, which means after the first tier, it won't be 100% fair. This is the 2nd tier, which means both ships have already won against their closest and fairest fight. A fighter may be able to win 2nd place, but if their first match is with the fighter who would win first place, then it just won't happen and that's how it goes, and as far as I'm aware, there is no loser's bracket here either.
@@M551_Sheridan I wasn't trying to slight the Slava in any way. It's a beast of a ship and one that the West took so seriously that they completely reworked both doctrine and capabilities just as they are now with a perceived threat in China. I was just pointing out that the end result was obvious before it even started as although the Iowa is a large ship with lots of armor and guns, it was built 40 years before the missile age. The Ticonderoga's were the direct result of the threat of the very dangerous weaponry on the Slava. Outside of this tournament, I think it would be interesting to see the Tico v. Slava 1-1. The Slava is very well defended and quite hard to kill.
Cap, I saw a comment on another Sea Power video (Jingles) that ECM for the American ships isn't working. It'll show as active, but would not actually be doing anything. SP devs confirmed and will work to correct it . . . after Christmas. This may explain why the Soviet missiles were so effective in previous battles.
The soviet missiles are way, way over modeled too. The max high altitude speed of the sandbox is not even as fast as they were doing on the deck, and the sandbox attacks at 50 meters, not 25 feet. I also seriously, seriously question their perfectly inline concentrated time on target attack capability in sea power too. I am sure they have better organization than a typical american congo line missile attack, but being PERFECTLY lined up? with 80s tech? No chance.
Cap, US New Jersey actually did have a helicopter in the 1980s operating from a fight deck on the stern. In the 1930s that space was used by catapult launched seaplanes. So I believe it has always carried its own air support for spotting. Not sure why this sim didn't include the helicopter. The US New Jersey museum ship has an excellent RUclips channel which covers this extensively. Best, -John
If the Slava, Iowa and Kirov fired all their missiles they will kill anything in the launch version of the game, so in reality it's a 3 way tie when it comes to which ship is "best" under this format. If we include the NTU upgrade, the Ticoneroga cruiser is the new champ.
@@theaxgame No but the Kirovs all had improvements during their production run, the Kirov had older S-300s and close range SAMs, the Pytor Veliky has newer S-300s and a Tor based system (all late 1980s spec).
NTU was for ships with older weapon systems... all the CGNs where supposed to get it but only CGN9, both California's and the last pair of Virginia's got it (from memory) the Belknaps, Leahy class cruisers got it, the Mahan DDG42 got it in 82' and was the test ship for it(the rest of the Coontz class was supposed to get it but the DDG51 class replaced them), and the 4 Kidd class got it. Weapons and radar are the main improvements in game (plus other stuff in real life). In real life the NTU equipped ships gave better radar performance than AEGIS when close to land (the "Littorals" as its called), not until AEGIS got upgraded later did its littoral performance becoming better than the NTU ships
Instead of the Slavas or instead of the Iowas? Because they actually did pit the Iowas against the Kirovs before and the Iowas actually won the round. (somehow)😅
I mean, the Iowas did already win against Kirovs. It was pure luck in that the Kirovs targeted sinking ships, but they still won by the rules of the tournament and moved on. It was kinda obvious that Iowa wouldn’t move on too much further, they have such awful defenses.
@@andrewruss5824 Yeah, but the gun range fights are just for fun. They don't affect the score. But you are right the Kirovs had bad luck with their targeting, like the Iowas had this time. And the Iowas at the end of the day are still pretty well armoured, even against these kinds of anti-ship missiles. Atleast when compared to any of the other ships in sea power.
@Grim Reapers, the scenario I would love to see, is a Soviet battle group, of the real (not paper) Soviet carrier plus Moskova, Kirov and some good destroyers and frigates with at least one SSN v a USN carrier battle group with good escorts and a SSN. Now that would be very interesting.
@@jkhusky Thanks. Didn't realize the Russians had reused the name. (Kinda figures they would - a lot of prestige for a ship to be named after a nation's capital.)
Looking further into Iowa's Armour, her belt was 12in of Krupp or Harvey steel which was cemented Armour....when the blocks of Armour are made the crystalline structure settles into one direction under a continual heating the alloy used consisted of: : in % of total - carbon 0.35, nickel 3.90, chromium 2.00, manganese 0.35, silicon 0.07, phosphorus 0.025, sulfur 0.020(for up to a month) it was carbonized by applying a continuous flow of Coal gas of actelyne, which hardened the steel face allowing the back of the plate to be welded, mounted.... the Germans designed cemented Armour by cementing two plates each each set to offset the the structure, this allowed them to create super hard Armour, allowing defend against 14/15/16 inch shells that were designed to penetrate with hardened steel cap, weighing upto 1,200kg, so the HE warhead of the missile shouldn't penetrate.
This is what i keep saying, but ive seen so many people say “missiles new means missiles better” the thing is Iowa was designed to withstand 16” super heavy weight shells which weigh 2500ibs traveling at Mach 2 and these are armore penetrators where the biggest missiles Russia had were p700 granites which travel at Mach 3 and are he warheads there is no chance modern missiles could sink an Iowa, at most they could mission kill it
@SgtTechCom all the electronic stuff yes but Iowas main and secondary guns have manual backups and there’s visual sighting abilities too battleships have tons of redundancies
@@c0ldyloxproductions324 Right but that's not going to help in a fight from 60 miles. Also, the shock damage would probably knock out the boilers too. So she'd be sitting dead in the water for, again, hours if not days. But you are still right: That's not going to make the Iowa sink.
Not too unpredictable considering the Slavas are air defense cruisers. Regarding the "How many missiles to fire" question, we saw what happened when they AI chose. The other choice equally applied would be to fire all missiles, both sides. In which case neither would survive.
They've never been "air defense cruisers". Since the beginning of design their main task has always been the anti-shipping warfare. Everything else was secondary.
First off the slava is in no way an anti aircraft cruiser it's first mission has always been anti ship and everything else is secondary And if both sides fired off all their missiles out of resulted in all the slava class cruises being dead and the I was having their superstructure blown off those missiles cannot get into the armoured Citadel of an Iowa which guess what you have to get in there to actually sink the ship so if this was actually realistic bear would have been no other way but torpedoes for the cruises to win
Like another commenter has already said modern ships are tin cans and have tin foil for armor meanwhile Iowa class battleships are the closest thing the world has ever come to actual battle stars considering those things are ridiculously heavily armoured compared to modern ships the missiles does cruises are carrying just aren't designed to get through that armor
Lest I become overwrought, I sometimes must remind myself that these kinds of videos are just for fun. It's good to keep in mind that the scenarios are all about as realistic as the question of who would win the fight, one horse sized duck or one hundred duck sized horses? Or who would win the fight, a Sherman tank or a Tiger tank? (As a reminder, there wouldn't be one Sherman tank, there would be three to eight Sherman tanks, and there wouldn't be one Tiger tank there would be a Panzer III and a Stug because the Tiger broke down one week and one hundred kilometers ago.) Before a bunch of simps come to pile on me, I'll point out that I do enjoy the videos which is why I keep watching them. I'm just pointing out the obvious. There's a reason that a nation with an economy the size of Italy never tried to get it on with a nation whose economy was larger than all of Europe put together plus Europe itself. A nation who bankrupted itself North Korea style by even trying to even keep up militarily.
Strange how in real life the Slava could nor even defend against a Neptune missile with a 330lb warhead but can shoot down Tomahawks and Harpoons but it could survive a 500lb warhead hit from a harpoon
It's actually completely expected in my opinion. The Neptunes are modern and optimised to fly extremely low as compared to what the Slava was every designed to copy with. Just a simple miss-match of 1980 vs 2022 in my opinion.
Sinking all four Iowa class battleships by P-500 Bazalt missiles is very unrealistic! The armor scheme of the Iowa is designed to stop armor piercing AP shells travling 2.743,2 km per hour and weighing 1200kg, the warhead of a P-500 Bazalt only is semi-armor-piercing HE and 950kg. However the outcome would be the same, the Slava cruisers will heavely damage and take out all Iowa class battleships, the missiles will engite big fires and cause heavy damage to the superstructure sensors and weapons systems no longer capable of fighting but they will stay afloat. After that the Slava cruisers can take out the Iowa battleships one by one at close range with their 533 mm torpedos, torpedo defences of Iowa class battleships have a weak spot close to turret number one and the Sovjets know this!
Great video Cap. Really highlights the difference in naval philosophy between the US and USSR during the early/mid 80's. American ships were always intended to operate with escorts, each ship having a main role vs a 1 size fits all. Russia knew they couldn't match the American carrier battle groups straight up, so made their ships multi-purpose and almost raider like in strategy. My opinion has always been that the Russian surface fleet was significantly better during this timeframe as long as they could neutralize the American satellite and carrier advantage. It wasn't until the mid/late 80's early 90's that American ships became more self sufficient (again, my unlearned opinion). Another great video!
the nice thing about fleet doctrine is that none of the really big berthas are deployed solo. there would be dedicated smaller defense ships around the biggies. that would layer the defense
Cap, I hope you are doing well. I am gonna leave this comment here, hope you see it. I think you missed the chance to include a couple of very interesting vessels in this tournament: 1. Leahy Class: It has 2 twin-arm launchers for the long range SM-2ER (range 80nmi). This makes it a very potent ship against those missiles that fly high. And in general to shoot down enemy fighters and bombers. 2. Udaloy Class: Believe it or not, this is the best ship in the game when it comes to missile defense. Thanks to the VLS launched Tor Missiles it can intercept almost everything you throw at it. It also has a very good DECM system which can often jam incoming Harpoons. I don't know if and how these ships can be included into this tournament, but i hope you feature them in some way in upcoming videos.
For the Iowa, you can maybe try to find it a Gulf War update where it gets CIWSs and give it simulated support it would have from the 90s to make it a bit more fair. You could find workarounds for each situation, such as having a sort of modern destroyer facing something like PT boats from WWII and Korea, there could be say 2 or 3 PTs waiting to ambush the more modern destroyed without any AWACS where the PTs wouldnt be outside engagement range or the destroyer would thing tgey are fishing or leasure boats till they are within visual range to be ID'ed. Not sure that can be exactly simulated here but you wouldnt see a PT attacking anything from 300 miles out.
So some thing I saw another player do that may or may not be accurate to real life (although he is actually former OHP USN) is use the Tomahawk land attack missiles as decoys to deplete the enemy air defenses. Apparently they can’t tell the difference so if you launch a huge wave of those, you’ll increase the chance that your TASMs and Harpoons get through.
Next round suggestion. Get two Grim Reapers, they get 100 points and then assign ships a point value. Then they get to have a face off. Could even be a tournament between GRs.
@@iplaygames8090 That's what I meant, they don't get to control, just watch. They can decide where they are placed and their direction of travel at start then the AI takes over.
Remember gentlemen, Scripting so the favorite guy wins is called propaganda and that is not what we are here for. Love the videos Cap and the graphics looked amazing in this one.
Would like to see a Nanchuka vs Tarantul for the small ships - Despite the shorter ranged P15 Termits could the Tarantul defend herself from the Nanchuka long enough to get into her weapons range - she has a 76mm AK176 and a 30mm AK-630 which both can engage missile threats
Believe you can actually control the other side as well. If you hit F10 to open the debug menu while you have an enemy unit, selected there is a button in the top bar of the debug window that has a C in a circle, allows you to control the unit
in one of the games built in scenarios i masked my antiship tomahawks , with tlams launched before and after them (aimed them where the target ship would be if they maintained course and speed). im aware this cannot be done during this particular series.
Iowa launches just 16.7% of it's missiles and Slava fires 38% of it's missiles, how are we even calling this a "competition" in any way? All this shows is that the AI is wildly inconsistent and is totally incapable of even judging what kind of threat it's shooting at. Shame we can't do a "fire everything" competition. Oh wait, we can. F10!
These Sandbox missiles perform nothing like the actual threat assessment of the real life SS-N-12. The low altitude attack speed of the SS-N-12 is stated at 50 meters. These are not even at 50 feet. The maximum ~high altitude~ speed of Sandbox is mach 2.5, the on the deck speed is half that. So these missiles are wildly faster than their stated capabilities. And they're much lower.
99% sure the speed of the SS-N-12 is just bugged atm, as the SS-N-19 does actually correctly change speed depending on it's height. And I'm not sure what your point on the height is? The Sandboxes DO travel at 50 meters (164 feet) ingame. They only go lower when they are very close to the target (to strike the waterline).
@@ryonacrest6178 The SS-N-12 flying significantly lower than it should greatly reduces the detection range of the missile to the targeted ship. That's what my point is.
@@ryonacrest6178 How do you know it "literally flies at exactly 50 meters in game" did you get out a tape measure? Or do you have access to the radar altimeter data? Or maybe you're in the CDC of the Tico? In any case, 50 meters is 164 feet. In game they were very clearly flying at about 50 FEET. Something that several people in this thread have commented on, besides me. The difference in radar horizon target detection for a target at 50 feet vs 50 meters is almost 8 nautical miles. That's why the missiles actual altitude is so important.
@@nomorerainbows 160 feet is literally it's flight altitude when sea-skimming, as stated in the game files. Furthermore, you can literally see it in-game and in this video. Go to 11:03 and at the bottom it very clearly shows that the missile is at 164 feet.
I guess the reason the Iowas turned away from the Slavas in the galleon battle was the AI wanted to get beyond minimum launch range for their missiles. The Slavas would be doing the same but they had a few holes by then
My only issue with these videos is about how the game seems to ignore the armor on the Iowas, the engine seems to discount the armor plate these missiles would have to deal with.
This is a valid point and an ongoing debate for decades. It is extremely important to remember that these AShMs have either no armor piercing or "semi-armor piercing" warheads. The only real armor they can pierce is the kinetic energy of their speed and weight which can be considerable, but has never been shown to be able to pierce more than 3 or 4" of armor. The Iowa class had 12" at the weakest part of the belt and roughly 17" everywhere else including the turrets. It is likely that all AShMs would simply 'bounce' off it.
@@screechowl4008Not a valid point at all, Battleships is history for a reason, this missiles have no problem penetrating Iowa, they are armed with an semi-armor-piercing high-explosive warhead..
@@MrCastodian This is why I said that it's been a debate for decades. There are zero cite-able tests or references that show that these can penetrate more than about 4" because even the "semi-armor piercing" just means that the weight and speed of the missile will carry it through. Against 12" of hardened armor it should go splat just as the Harpoon would. I have checked the National Defense archives, and the CIA papers on these missiles (who said they have the technical manuals) and at the end of the day, they said it might penetrate, in the right circumstances. They are built for today's armor, which is much, much, much thinner.
This is a really neat battle. I've wondered who would win in a battle between the U.S.S. Iowa and the Moskva (Slava). I had a feeling that the Moskva would win due to it being a newer, more modern warship than the Iowa.
At the beginning of the battle, you stated the range was short and each side had an AWACS as the Iowa did not have any sort of spotter aircraft while the Kirov/slava could just launch its helicopter. Does this mean that the RQ-2’s that the Iowa carried are not modeled in game, as well as its ability to support/carry a whole host of helicopters on its rear heli deck?
A lot of American sailors I talked with mentioned respect for the Slava class, and though I took them at their word, it's really something to see for yourself. Well done, Russia; that's a hell of a ship!
In light of recent developments where a couple of missles and unmanned attack drones take out a capital ship, could you model that with various ships and conditions? Sure, we heard the excuse that maybe the radars weren't working or operator error and such. Can factors such as that be modeled?
The RQ-2 Pioneer could be used for Reconnaissance and spotting at about 100nm away from the Iowas. I guess an H2 could be used in its place, along the lines of what the KA-25 role.
@@riskinhos You mean like they were in 1981 over the Bekaa Valley or in 1991 over Kuwait and Iraq when Missouri and Wisconsin used them against the Republican Guard ?
@@riskinhos SO! YOU SEE IT! MADE IN USA? VERY GARBAGE AND RUBBISH! IN THE WORLD! SOVIET ARE THE BEST AND PERFECTION! EVEN RUSSIA TODAY CAN WIN EVERYWHERE OF BATTLEFIELD! VICTORY BELONG TO RUSSIAN!
Its weird the CIWS were so ineffective against a supersonic missile. I could see if they were hypersonic, and know both the Harpoons and Tomahawks are subsonic missiles. but would have thought the CIWS would have at least got some of the Vulcan Missiles.
I wonder if the flak AoE is well modeled? There were so many very near misses that would probably shred an aircraft, but do the missiles just not have that much vulnerable avionics? I would think that a near miss by a 5”38 shell would do a number to anything within 50 feet of detonation with even WWII era VT fusing
The flak isn't actually "modelled". The game runs calculation on RNG to see if flak and CIWS intercept a missile. The bullets are nothing more than visual effects that just play over the calculations.
I would love to see a best out of 3 for rounds in the future so it's not as much rng of missiles locking or not. Also, it's cool to see a double Elimination bracket and have fights that are primary ships with an escort(s). not exactly sure how u make that even though.
@@ГеоргийМурзич In a very russian condition. They probably shouldn't have been going on a mission if it was in such a terrible condition, don't you think? Then again, that'd keep all the orcish fleet in ports forever... Theoretical paper values for russian systems always overestimate the effectivity. Mainly they ignore the crippling corruption and absolute ineptitude of the russian crews.
@@barbarapitenthusiast7103 Same garbage in a different color bag. soviet union had to rely on NATO countries for food support at times, pretty much ended in famine.
@@gebus5633 fun fact, the only food the soviets imported was grain. Another fun fact according to the CIA the average soviet citizen consumed over 3100 calories in the mid 1980s, compared to americans 3300. Also, lets ignore the fact the soviet economy and military budget were 10 larger than that of russia. Ignore the political and geopolitical differences, and then, and only then, are they comparable.
To further the point on how dominate the Iowa's are in close surface-to-surface combat, they easily could've won that "extra" round with only their secondary 5 inch guns.
To be fair, World War II showed us that the very concept of a battleship is obsolete. The US battleships in 1943, '44 and '45 were most useful for shore bombardment and did very little (if any) ship-to-ship gunnery. The most powerful battleships ever built - Yamato and Musashi - achieved next to nothing. Arguably, they diverted valuable steel and manpower away from more fruitful options. Bismark sank the battle cruiser HMS Hood (with a lucky shot that went into a magazine by passing below Hood's armour belt) but was disabled by a torpedo from a Fairey Swordfish biplane, and was later sunk by torpedoes launched from destroyers. Tirpitz spent almost her entire war hiding from the Royal Navy.
I would love to see another tactical competition Without AWACS support Also having the distance between the ships be the max range of the shortest range ASuM ignoring missiles like the silex for ships that carry other anti-ship missiles Originally I thought of having them at the maximum range of the longest-range missile but then the USSR would win all of the time except for the frigates
@@sergeychmelev5270 nah, a 14" shell hits harder and is made to be armor piercing. These missiles would make a big boom but not put the ship in danger of sinking.
@@trentvlak ever heard of Fritz-X sinking Roma? Ant it was traveling at less than Mach 1. Ever hear of a battleship sunk by a 14in shell? Yeah, me neither.
Thanks for the boom boom! No one should be upset with the result. We all know these battles don't factor in naval doctrine or strategy, so it's purely grudge match type stuff. The modernized Iowa's were never meant to go out and play on their own. Plus, we all know the real-world score is what matters most. 🛳😁 Regarding the missiles ultimately hitting the same sunk ship or resulting in less than ideal targeting based on their onboard radars and going terminal, I'd agree that's realistic for the 1980's. For modern anti-ship missiles, I'd be willing to wager virtually all of those new models have a combination of additional programming, sensors, and/or datalink to coordinate efficient attacks. I'd guess it's somewhere around 50/50 as to the Harpoons specifically receiving such upgraded capabilities. I know the LRASM and Naval Strike Missile are reported to have infrared and an AI-assisted database of pre-loaded enemy ship profiles. They are designed to coordinate between each other to not only select the most appropriate target but to also hit the most vulnerable or critical areas of the targetted ship. As for Soviet/Russian missiles, call me crazy, but I doubt they've had too many upgrades/new variants since this era. Their ships certainly didn't receive a load of upgrades or even proper maintenance (Moskva), so why would we believe all of their old weapons would be overhauled?
How about a 5 ship competition. Each player chooses five ships from a country or coalition with a tonnage limit so they can’t choose 5 capital ships. Two rounds, one as AI control and one in player control so both players get a chance at manual control. Third round is a tie breaker if needed.
They should reactivate USS Wisconsin aka as the big whiskey. BB -64 Iowa Class Battleship. The navy needs to make an auto loading version of the Iowas with modern technology keeping 16 inch guns.
Battleships are dead, dead and dead they are a thing of the past. As powerful and mighty they were in their heyday the battleship as a class of ship is simply too much of a liability in the modern battlefield let alone the resources allocated for the maintenance, manpower etc needed to operate one which would be better suited for a class of brand new modern guided missile cruisers
There is a reason why the navy retired the battleship design. Can’t compete in long range battle. Possibly if the ships started out closer it would be different. Maybe put an island between the two ships. No line of sight (no awacs) bring them close to as 15 miles.
But they retired them in the 90s, even put them back in service to tank soviet missile Cruiser attacks, just like with most of these scenarios it doesn't account for doctrine and task Forge composition
In the first round (1v1) the Iowa never even fired its CWIS as well as chaff. When one side does zero self defense while the other sides does then the outcome will be obvious.
Well Sir, I have to point that you picked a wrong match. In terms of tonnage and capability, Tico and Slava are closer for battle, not refitted WWII ship with no SAM at all.
I'm actually not surprised. Iowa was a Battleship that was modernized in the 1980s to support landing operations with its massive 16-inch guns, not to be a ship hunter. The Slava class, on the other hand, was designed to hunt US Supercarriers. I think the Zumwalt would do better against the Slava. Cap, can you model the Zumwalt in Sea Power?
Honestly, I think your simulator is inaccurate. The Sandbox missiles would not reliably penetrate the armor belt of the Iowa. The Phalanx has proven to be incredibly effective while the AK-630 CIWS proved to have mediocre accuracy. The Tomahawks are stealthy sea-skimmers with three to four times the range of the Sandbox, whereas Sandbox has a high-altitude flight profile for most of its flight (making it easy to track) and a substantial radar cross-section. That said, they are two ships with very different missions. A more accurate match-up would be the Slava against the Ticonderoga.
Phalanx is useless against Mach 3 missiles, let alone 4-ton Mach 3 missile. AK-630 would have at least some chance of downing it, given its shells are almost x4 heavier than those of Phalanx. Tomahawks are not stealthy, very slow, and very easy to get shot at over the sea surface since their terrain-following capabilities are useless there. That's exactly why they never replaced Harpoons on any single ship. Finally, a 2,200lb Sandbox warhead at Mach 3 would be hitting the ship with x8 more energy than a 16in shell fired at 20-30 miles.
That said, I want to address something you’ve mentioned recently-about how some viewers are requesting shorter, more streamlined videos, while you prefer your longer, uncut style. I understand where you’re coming from. Long-form content allows for a more authentic experience, showing the trial and error of gameplay, and that’s part of what makes your channel unique. But as much as this style resonates with some of us, it’s also worth recognizing the value of adapting to viewer preferences.
Balancing Viewer Expectations with Your Vision
Your fans are not asking you to compromise the integrity of your content-they simply want it to be more accessible. Here are a few suggestions that could help strike a balance between your artistic vision and viewer satisfaction:
Consider a Two-Format Approach:
You could create two types of content:
Long-Form Gameplay: Keep these videos for your core audience who love the unfiltered experience.
Highlight Reels: Edit condensed versions of your gameplay for viewers who want quick, action-packed recaps. This way, you cater to both casual and dedicated fans.
Engage Directly with Your Fans:
Poll your audience to get a clearer picture of what they want. You might find that they’re happy with minor adjustments, like adding timestamps or providing a brief overview at the start of your videos.
Optimize Without Compromising:
Editing doesn’t mean sacrificing authenticity. If you spend an hour on mistakes, maybe trim those down to the most relevant or funniest parts. It’s not about removing the struggle-it’s about presenting it efficiently.
Use Live Streams for Uncut Content:
Live streaming your unedited gameplay might be the best way to cater to your hardcore fans. Those who love the long sessions can join live, and you can upload shorter versions afterward for everyone else.
Why Adapt?
I know the fear of losing fans can be daunting, but adapting doesn’t mean abandoning your style. By showing that you’re willing to listen and evolve, you strengthen your bond with your audience. The reality is that viewers have limited time and numerous options, and being flexible helps you stay competitive while preserving the core of what makes your channel special.
In the end, your viewers come to your channel for the content and for you. While change might feel like a risk, it’s also an opportunity to grow without alienating the fans who’ve supported you from the start.
Thanks Shady. Appreciated. I'm going to start advertising the larger uncut battles as "LIVE BATTLES", with a disclaimer at the start. So that way, even before watching the viewer knows what to expect and they don't waste 90 mins of their time if they don't like the live battles.
no its fucxking borin the dcs content was so much better it was faster more detailed more action kept us heavily entertained this is so slow and boring i love caps videos and will always support and watch them but i noticed i have to fast forward and skip when he does sea power
Shadyshadow: You don't speak for "the fans", no-one made you the representative of channel viewers.
Cap: audience capture is a toxic trend and no-one creative ever thrived for long blowing around in the breeze of what non-paying viewers say they want
@@grimreapers there is nothing at all wrong with the length, just please get more familiar with the systems before you hit record.
Thats Ai writte right?
Cap - just for fun at the end of the tourney - Iowa vs. Everybody in a galleon battle. We need to see more 16" shells in the air!
This is at the end of the video
@tbe0116 I think he means Iowa vs every other ship tested in the series 💀
OK!!!!!!!!!!
yes more 16inch they would have used them in this situation
@@tbe0116 No it's not, he means everybody, all types of ships vs. Iowa at the same time.
This is actually a contest of Sandbox vs Tomahawk/Harpoon, not ship vs ship. The Iowa has 48 anti ship missiles and the captain would know how well defended the Slava was, and fire an overwhelming amount of missiles.
The AI in this game is *really* bad, and you get the result you got here.
OP did say that this would be unfair if he shot off all missiles with the AI not reacting the same way. But by your own logic, the soviet captain would know how dangerous the Iowa's 48 anti ship missiles are and fire off all of his missiles out of range of our Tomahawks/Harpoons. Almost anybody can win against anybody if the conditions are faverable.
This series is more of a comparison of the AI combat power than any sort of realism as in reality similar ships don't target each other, don't sail alone, and it's more of a cat and mouse game.
@@AntonVolnov Cap said that he can't get the AI to react the same way because he doesn't even understand how the game works. If you go into debug mode and hit F10 you can change sides in the middle of the fight.
In reality both ships would fire all their missiles a once, and this would be a tie 100 times out of 100.
Every single time. Also, the USN ECM is not working in the current version of the game.
@@AntonVolnov BGM-109B TASM is also a very long range missile. Neither one of these ships would ever see each other at maximum range anyway.
And no one wants to sit here and wait for the tomahawks to fly 250 nautical miles, I assure you.
But just for the record, from 23nm to 0: Iowa wins every time. From 24nm to 250nm: Tie every time. From 251nm to 300nm: Slava wins every time.
The talking about haw Slava class cruiser is well defended now sound strange.
I may be slightly addicted to this series to be within the first minute lol, keep up the awesome content folks!
If it helps, I'm also addicted.
Iowa's never went anywhere without escort for a reason: They have no fixed ASW capability and their AA is more of an afterthought in modern terms. The bottom line is that Iowa's can't shoot down $hit. If I were to pit Iowa's against Slava's, I would give proper escorts to both groups. I suspect that in this scenario a single Iowa with three Adam's class destroyers as an AA screen would fare better than four Iowa's.
The Iowas were pointlessly outdated like 10 years after they were made. 16 inch guns are completely useless in the 1980s, let alone modern warfare.
Cool. So, you want to send all those ships against a single 1164 cruiser whic would defenitely be alone (no) in the seas irl?
Yup agreed.
He literally said “proper escorts for BOTH groups” 🤦♂️🙄
And he’s right, the Iowas are still capital ships, even in the 1980s, they’d be escorted much like a carrier.
Still, I don’t think the armor is well modeled in this game. Most modern anti-ship weapons wouldn’t do much against BATTLESHIP armor, because… well… they never would need to. Most modern ships are just tin cans. Iowas were designed to protect against ~16-18” AP shells weighing as much as a small car.
Regardless, this result is a bit ridiculous. As was recently shown, even primitive weapons can defeat these Russian ships given their state of readiness and training.
@@EstorilEm Yup, I meant proper escorts for both groups, ie a Slava with escorts against an Iowa with escorts. What we've seen in Ukraine is that Slava's can't shoot down $hit either.
And, I agree with what you said about the armor modeling. I was stunned when three hits on the citadel destroyed a battleship. It's like the armor wasn't even there. I've seen photos of a battleship (cruiser?) that was hit in the citadel by a kamikaze with an 1,100lb bomb strapped to it: It left an airplane-shaped scorch mark on the armor and buckled a few plates - that was it.
I remember playing games with the Soviets in the 80s. A new crew quality and readiness category needs to be added for those guys in any gaming scenario: Drunk AF.
I was in a 14' fishing boat when the Iowa passed about 100 feet away, all hands on deck, upon leaving Long Beach Harbor on the way to retirement.
She's in Long Beach, she came from San Francisco (Suisun Bay reserve fleet).
@Robdog1-w1f So it wasn't her last trip.
25:27 the survival rafts got blown up QAQ
At the end? The turn? It was so that the rifle barrels of the 16 inchers depressed far enough to allow them to hit the Slava's at close range. If more range is needed, they turn HARD, the other way -- allowing for the turret 'mean angle' to change and allow for a greater distance. The 'bad' part of this is that they can only 'hold' this positioning for a limited amount of time in that the ship itself, will head off to the wrong course. Kind of a "quick" 'snap shot'.
Good point! I thought it was just because the Iowas were trying to get to their prefered battle range. Which is, let's say a bit further out.😂 I mean the distances in the galleon battle would've been short even for early dreadnoughts.
Appreciate the well thought out explanation in the beginning. Great series. More scenarios - best scenarios!
As a native Iowan, I am always proud of the Iowa class even if its time is past. We don’t get much mention outside of presidential elections, corn and pigs.
Yes, there was last capital ships in service and probably the best.
I don't know how you expected any result other than what you got. The 'refit' BB's were never meant to be alone against missile cruisers and lack not only defensive SAMs, but a radar that can track and engage more than 1 target at a time. They are part of a system in which they are the support role. If you wanted more of an apple to apple comparison you have to put the Slava vs the Tico. The Tico can attack and defend as it can track 30 targets and engage 24 simultaneously at 40 miles. By the late 80's, in direct response to the Slava, they were capable of 130 mile Harpoons and 90 mile SAMs.
Please stop this, it’s unfair to be so one sided, you would never comment this on the krivak vs ohp video saying it’s one sided
@@M551_Sheridan Thats a strange assumption to make of a stranger. Nothing he said was incorrect. So, what exactly is the problem?
@ I’m saying he’s calling bias when it benefits Russia but not when it benefits the United States, I understand it is quite preposterous to try to use a game in development as that key but your surmise for why this person is doing this is about as good as mine
This is a tournament style series where each ship fights its closest rival in armament and tonnage, which means after the first tier, it won't be 100% fair. This is the 2nd tier, which means both ships have already won against their closest and fairest fight. A fighter may be able to win 2nd place, but if their first match is with the fighter who would win first place, then it just won't happen and that's how it goes, and as far as I'm aware, there is no loser's bracket here either.
@@M551_Sheridan I wasn't trying to slight the Slava in any way. It's a beast of a ship and one that the West took so seriously that they completely reworked both doctrine and capabilities just as they are now with a perceived threat in China. I was just pointing out that the end result was obvious before it even started as although the Iowa is a large ship with lots of armor and guns, it was built 40 years before the missile age. The Ticonderoga's were the direct result of the threat of the very dangerous weaponry on the Slava. Outside of this tournament, I think it would be interesting to see the Tico v. Slava 1-1. The Slava is very well defended and quite hard to kill.
Cap, I saw a comment on another Sea Power video (Jingles) that ECM for the American ships isn't working. It'll show as active, but would not actually be doing anything. SP devs confirmed and will work to correct it . . . after Christmas.
This may explain why the Soviet missiles were so effective in previous battles.
The soviet missiles are way, way over modeled too. The max high altitude speed of the sandbox is not even as fast as they were doing on the deck, and the sandbox attacks at 50 meters, not 25 feet.
I also seriously, seriously question their perfectly inline concentrated time on target attack capability in sea power too.
I am sure they have better organization than a typical american congo line missile attack, but being PERFECTLY lined up? with 80s tech? No chance.
Roger, that is rather annoying. Not a lot we can really do about it? Really want to get series finished so we can start a new one.
I said the Soviet ships were too destructive.
Cap, US New Jersey actually did have a helicopter in the 1980s operating from a fight deck on the stern. In the 1930s that space was used by catapult launched seaplanes. So I believe it has always carried its own air support for spotting. Not sure why this sim didn't include the helicopter. The US New Jersey museum ship has an excellent RUclips channel which covers this extensively. Best, -John
Upvote this. I’ve been on the New Jersey and Missouri when they were still active and there was a helipad on them.
I'm guessing because it doesn't have a hangar, and because the RQ-2 Pioneer UAV isn't in-game yet.
Thanks John, wish we had the helo in game.
Weak iowa and weak yank navy 😂
@@Will-b7g So what does this have to do with what aircraft the Iowa's operated in the 80s?
Loved that bouncer off the second ship in the background at 19.30.
If the Slava, Iowa and Kirov fired all their missiles they will kill anything in the launch version of the game, so in reality it's a 3 way tie when it comes to which ship is "best" under this format.
If we include the NTU upgrade, the Ticoneroga cruiser is the new champ.
Pyotr Velikiy would win, it's the newest and most modern of them (still 1980s tech) at the time she left the dockyard (1996)
@RomanianReaver does NTU add to the Kirov? I thought it was only for NATO ships
@@theaxgame
No but the Kirovs all had improvements during their production run, the Kirov had older S-300s and close range SAMs, the Pytor Veliky has newer S-300s and a Tor based system (all late 1980s spec).
@@theaxgame NTU was a US Navy program, so I doubt it does anything to or for the Russkies.
NTU was for ships with older weapon systems... all the CGNs where supposed to get it but only CGN9, both California's and the last pair of Virginia's got it (from memory) the Belknaps, Leahy class cruisers got it, the Mahan DDG42 got it in 82' and was the test ship for it(the rest of the Coontz class was supposed to get it but the DDG51 class replaced them), and the 4 Kidd class got it. Weapons and radar are the main improvements in game (plus other stuff in real life). In real life the NTU equipped ships gave better radar performance than AEGIS when close to land (the "Littorals" as its called), not until AEGIS got upgraded later did its littoral performance becoming better than the NTU ships
Honestly, maybe a kirov would have been a better pick but Iowa having no real good missile swarm defense will result in the same loss
Instead of the Slavas or instead of the Iowas? Because they actually did pit the Iowas against the Kirovs before and the Iowas actually won the round. (somehow)😅
@firstname8637 yeah true but alot was in the Iowa favor, especially gun range
I mean, the Iowas did already win against Kirovs. It was pure luck in that the Kirovs targeted sinking ships, but they still won by the rules of the tournament and moved on. It was kinda obvious that Iowa wouldn’t move on too much further, they have such awful defenses.
@@andrewruss5824 Yeah, but the gun range fights are just for fun. They don't affect the score. But you are right the Kirovs had bad luck with their targeting, like the Iowas had this time. And the Iowas at the end of the day are still pretty well armoured, even against these kinds of anti-ship missiles. Atleast when compared to any of the other ships in sea power.
he already did that
really cool, keep doing these :)
@Grim Reapers, the scenario I would love to see, is a Soviet battle group, of the real (not paper) Soviet carrier plus Moskova, Kirov and some good destroyers and frigates with at least one SSN v a USN carrier battle group with good escorts and a SSN. Now that would be very interesting.
Didn't the Moskva get sunk?
@@horusfalconhe's talking about another ship named Moscva, a helicopter carrier
(The one sunk in black sea is Slava class missile cruiser)
@@jkhusky Thanks. Didn't realize the Russians had reused the name. (Kinda figures they would - a lot of prestige for a ship to be named after a nation's capital.)
@@jkhusky No he's not. He said the "real carrier plus moskva"
The real soviet carrier is/was the Kiev.
@@SgtTechCom Soviets/Russia never had a carrier named Kirov.Kirov is a battlecruiser you might be thinking of the Kiev.
Looking further into Iowa's Armour, her belt was 12in of Krupp or Harvey steel which was cemented Armour....when the blocks of Armour are made the crystalline structure settles into one direction under a continual heating the alloy used consisted of: : in % of total - carbon 0.35, nickel 3.90, chromium 2.00, manganese 0.35, silicon 0.07, phosphorus 0.025, sulfur 0.020(for up to a month) it was carbonized by applying a continuous flow of Coal gas of actelyne, which hardened the steel face allowing the back of the plate to be welded, mounted.... the Germans designed cemented Armour by cementing two plates each each set to offset the the structure, this allowed them to create super hard Armour, allowing defend against 14/15/16 inch shells that were designed to penetrate with hardened steel cap, weighing upto 1,200kg, so the HE warhead of the missile shouldn't penetrate.
Agreed. The missile is heavier but it's much slower and isn't an armored penetrator.
This is what i keep saying, but ive seen so many people say “missiles new means missiles better” the thing is Iowa was designed to withstand 16” super heavy weight shells which weigh 2500ibs traveling at Mach 2 and these are armore penetrators where the biggest missiles Russia had were p700 granites which travel at Mach 3 and are he warheads there is no chance modern missiles could sink an Iowa, at most they could mission kill it
Correct, but the blast and shock damage of a single sandbox hit would knock just about every system on an Iowa out for hours, if not days.
@SgtTechCom all the electronic stuff yes but Iowas main and secondary guns have manual backups and there’s visual sighting abilities too battleships have tons of redundancies
@@c0ldyloxproductions324 Right but that's not going to help in a fight from 60 miles.
Also, the shock damage would probably knock out the boilers too. So she'd be sitting dead in the water for, again, hours if not days.
But you are still right: That's not going to make the Iowa sink.
This was really cool to watch. A bit sad to see those BBs be helpless against missiles though
Not too unpredictable considering the Slavas are air defense cruisers. Regarding the "How many missiles to fire" question, we saw what happened when they AI chose. The other choice equally applied would be to fire all missiles, both sides. In which case neither would survive.
They've never been "air defense cruisers". Since the beginning of design their main task has always been the anti-shipping warfare. Everything else was secondary.
First off the slava is in no way an anti aircraft cruiser it's first mission has always been anti ship and everything else is secondary
And if both sides fired off all their missiles out of resulted in all the slava class cruises being dead and the I was having their superstructure blown off those missiles cannot get into the armoured Citadel of an Iowa which guess what you have to get in there to actually sink the ship so if this was actually realistic bear would have been no other way but torpedoes for the cruises to win
Like another commenter has already said modern ships are tin cans and have tin foil for armor meanwhile Iowa class battleships are the closest thing the world has ever come to actual battle stars considering those things are ridiculously heavily armoured compared to modern ships the missiles does cruises are carrying just aren't designed to get through that armor
Lest I become overwrought, I sometimes must remind myself that these kinds of videos are just for fun. It's good to keep in mind that the scenarios are all about as realistic as the question of who would win the fight, one horse sized duck or one hundred duck sized horses? Or who would win the fight, a Sherman tank or a Tiger tank? (As a reminder, there wouldn't be one Sherman tank, there would be three to eight Sherman tanks, and there wouldn't be one Tiger tank there would be a Panzer III and a Stug because the Tiger broke down one week and one hundred kilometers ago.)
Before a bunch of simps come to pile on me, I'll point out that I do enjoy the videos which is why I keep watching them. I'm just pointing out the obvious. There's a reason that a nation with an economy the size of Italy never tried to get it on with a nation whose economy was larger than all of Europe put together plus Europe itself. A nation who bankrupted itself North Korea style by even trying to even keep up militarily.
When Slava entered service USSR was the 2nd largest economy in the world, lol
Yup 100% for fun. BUT I find they do bring up good talking points also.
I try to always like a video before I watch so my pick losing doesn't affect me forgetting to.
you are my kind of valued viewer!
Always enjoy you Cap.
"Don't know what to say about that, viewers": one ship has air defenses, one doesn't.
Love your work Cap
Strange how in real life the Slava could nor even defend against a Neptune missile with a 330lb warhead but can shoot down Tomahawks and Harpoons but it could survive a 500lb warhead hit from a harpoon
Almost like the Slava of the 80's and the Slava of the 2020's were two different vessels! With massive disrepair!
In 2022 Moskva was in very poor condition with many crucial systems being inoperable
It's actually completely expected in my opinion. The Neptunes are modern and optimised to fly extremely low as compared to what the Slava was every designed to copy with. Just a simple miss-match of 1980 vs 2022 in my opinion.
Sinking all four Iowa class battleships by P-500 Bazalt missiles is very unrealistic! The armor scheme of the Iowa is designed to stop armor piercing AP shells travling 2.743,2 km per hour and weighing 1200kg, the warhead of a P-500 Bazalt only is semi-armor-piercing HE and 950kg. However the outcome would be the same, the Slava cruisers will heavely damage and take out all Iowa class battleships, the missiles will engite big fires and cause heavy damage to the superstructure sensors and weapons systems no longer capable of fighting but they will stay afloat. After that the Slava cruisers can take out the Iowa battleships one by one at close range with their 533 mm torpedos, torpedo defences of Iowa class battleships have a weak spot close to turret number one and the Sovjets know this!
Great video Cap. Really highlights the difference in naval philosophy between the US and USSR during the early/mid 80's. American ships were always intended to operate with escorts, each ship having a main role vs a 1 size fits all. Russia knew they couldn't match the American carrier battle groups straight up, so made their ships multi-purpose and almost raider like in strategy. My opinion has always been that the Russian surface fleet was significantly better during this timeframe as long as they could neutralize the American satellite and carrier advantage. It wasn't until the mid/late 80's early 90's that American ships became more self sufficient (again, my unlearned opinion).
Another great video!
Yup TBH I'm completely abusing what these ships were designed for in these battles, but still fun.
the nice thing about fleet doctrine is that none of the really big berthas are deployed solo. there would be dedicated smaller defense ships around the biggies. that would layer the defense
Finally GR realizes the strength of a blind flotilla
Cap, I hope you are doing well. I am gonna leave this comment here, hope you see it.
I think you missed the chance to include a couple of very interesting vessels in this tournament:
1. Leahy Class: It has 2 twin-arm launchers for the long range SM-2ER (range 80nmi). This makes it a very potent ship against those missiles that fly high. And in general to shoot down enemy fighters and bombers.
2. Udaloy Class: Believe it or not, this is the best ship in the game when it comes to missile defense. Thanks to the VLS launched Tor Missiles it can intercept almost everything you throw at it. It also has a very good DECM system which can often jam incoming Harpoons.
I don't know if and how these ships can be included into this tournament, but i hope you feature them in some way in upcoming videos.
I think it would be cool if you tried a few of the mods, too, like the one with the early 1990s Iowas.
For the Iowa, you can maybe try to find it a Gulf War update where it gets CIWSs and give it simulated support it would have from the 90s to make it a bit more fair. You could find workarounds for each situation, such as having a sort of modern destroyer facing something like PT boats from WWII and Korea, there could be say 2 or 3 PTs waiting to ambush the more modern destroyed without any AWACS where the PTs wouldnt be outside engagement range or the destroyer would thing tgey are fishing or leasure boats till they are within visual range to be ID'ed. Not sure that can be exactly simulated here but you wouldnt see a PT attacking anything from 300 miles out.
So some thing I saw another player do that may or may not be accurate to real life (although he is actually former OHP USN) is use the Tomahawk land attack missiles as decoys to deplete the enemy air defenses. Apparently they can’t tell the difference so if you launch a huge wave of those, you’ll increase the chance that your TASMs and Harpoons get through.
Next round suggestion. Get two Grim Reapers, they get 100 points and then assign ships a point value. Then they get to have a face off. Could even be a tournament between GRs.
Does Sea Power have PvP?
@@jjkrayenhagen no but they could simply plop the ships down
@@iplaygames8090 That's what I meant, they don't get to control, just watch. They can decide where they are placed and their direction of travel at start then the AI takes over.
Remember gentlemen, Scripting so the favorite guy wins is called propaganda and that is not what we are here for. Love the videos Cap and the graphics looked amazing in this one.
This is like having an aircraft carrier in a battle like this and not deploying the aircraft. Not using the Iowa's guns was a waste of time.
Would like to see a Nanchuka vs Tarantul for the small ships - Despite the shorter ranged P15 Termits could the Tarantul defend herself from the Nanchuka long enough to get into her weapons range - she has a 76mm AK176 and a 30mm AK-630 which both can engage missile threats
If you want it to be more equal between classes, make the tonnage equal (1 battleship vs 2 cruisers vs 5 destroyers vs etc).
I tried that in the background but it just didn't work. The smaller swarm wins 100% of time that I've tried it.
I saw the Iowa in Portsmouth in 1989 and the Wisconsin in pearl Harbour. The last of the proper ships!
I wonder if keeping a tighter escort around the carrier would help with SAM, AA and chaff coverage.
Looks like the Slava's AA boomeranged and shot itself 19:42 😂😂
oops!
Believe you can actually control the other side as well. If you hit F10 to open the debug menu while you have an enemy unit, selected there is a button in the top bar of the debug window that has a C in a circle, allows you to control the unit
Thanks will investigate.
in one of the games built in scenarios i masked my antiship tomahawks , with tlams launched before and after them (aimed them where the target ship would be if they maintained course and speed). im aware this cannot be done during this particular series.
Iowa launches just 16.7% of it's missiles and Slava fires 38% of it's missiles, how are we even calling this a "competition" in any way? All this shows is that the AI is wildly inconsistent and is totally incapable of even judging what kind of threat it's shooting at.
Shame we can't do a "fire everything" competition. Oh wait, we can. F10!
These Sandbox missiles perform nothing like the actual threat assessment of the real life SS-N-12. The low altitude attack speed of the SS-N-12 is stated at 50 meters. These are not even at 50 feet. The maximum ~high altitude~ speed of Sandbox is mach 2.5, the on the deck speed is half that. So these missiles are wildly faster than their stated capabilities. And they're much lower.
99% sure the speed of the SS-N-12 is just bugged atm, as the SS-N-19 does actually correctly change speed depending on it's height.
And I'm not sure what your point on the height is? The Sandboxes DO travel at 50 meters (164 feet) ingame. They only go lower when they are very close to the target (to strike the waterline).
@@ryonacrest6178 The SS-N-12 flying significantly lower than it should greatly reduces the detection range of the missile to the targeted ship.
That's what my point is.
@@nomorerainbows It doesn't fly significantly lower, though?
You said it flies at 50 meters. It literally flies at exactly 50 meters ingame.
@@ryonacrest6178 How do you know it "literally flies at exactly 50 meters in game" did you get out a tape measure? Or do you have access to the radar altimeter data?
Or maybe you're in the CDC of the Tico?
In any case, 50 meters is 164 feet. In game they were very clearly flying at about 50 FEET. Something that several people in this thread have commented on, besides me.
The difference in radar horizon target detection for a target at 50 feet vs 50 meters is almost 8 nautical miles.
That's why the missiles actual altitude is so important.
@@nomorerainbows 160 feet is literally it's flight altitude when sea-skimming, as stated in the game files.
Furthermore, you can literally see it in-game and in this video. Go to 11:03 and at the bottom it very clearly shows that the missile is at 164 feet.
I’m very curious to see just what the arsenal ship would do within the fleet
All I know is there is a Slava class cruiser at the bottom of the Black Sea right now irl.
I guess the reason the Iowas turned away from the Slavas in the galleon battle was the AI wanted to get beyond minimum launch range for their missiles. The Slavas would be doing the same but they had a few holes by then
Cap, enjoyed the show, but the Iowa's were never going to have a chance out of gun range, nor were they even intended to.
Completely agreed. Simply not designed for this.
My only issue with these videos is about how the game seems to ignore the armor on the Iowas, the engine seems to discount the armor plate these missiles would have to deal with.
Armor belt occupies only a small part of the hull surface
This is a valid point and an ongoing debate for decades. It is extremely important to remember that these AShMs have either no armor piercing or "semi-armor piercing" warheads. The only real armor they can pierce is the kinetic energy of their speed and weight which can be considerable, but has never been shown to be able to pierce more than 3 or 4" of armor. The Iowa class had 12" at the weakest part of the belt and roughly 17" everywhere else including the turrets. It is likely that all AShMs would simply 'bounce' off it.
@@screechowl4008Not a valid point at all, Battleships is history for a reason, this missiles have no problem penetrating Iowa, they are armed with an semi-armor-piercing high-explosive warhead..
@@screechowl4008what you are forgeting is that both the bazalt and granit were almost always equiped with a nuclear warhead
@@MrCastodian This is why I said that it's been a debate for decades. There are zero cite-able tests or references that show that these can penetrate more than about 4" because even the "semi-armor piercing" just means that the weight and speed of the missile will carry it through. Against 12" of hardened armor it should go splat just as the Harpoon would. I have checked the National Defense archives, and the CIA papers on these missiles (who said they have the technical manuals) and at the end of the day, they said it might penetrate, in the right circumstances. They are built for today's armor, which is much, much, much thinner.
So your channel has been demonetized, but I'm still getting ads? What is that about?
Demonetized doesn't mean 'no ads'. It just means the ad money doesn't go to the channel.
Well actually the Sea Power battles aren't getting de-$. Which is great!
This is a really neat battle. I've wondered who would win in a battle between the U.S.S. Iowa and the Moskva (Slava). I had a feeling that the Moskva would win due to it being a newer, more modern warship than the Iowa.
You Sunk my Battleship!
cap, just in case. On the next round you may control both ships by opening the debug menu by tapping F10.
At the beginning of the battle, you stated the range was short and each side had an AWACS as the Iowa did not have any sort of spotter aircraft while the Kirov/slava could just launch its helicopter. Does this mean that the RQ-2’s that the Iowa carried are not modeled in game, as well as its ability to support/carry a whole host of helicopters on its rear heli deck?
Most aircraft in game are in their early to mid 80s spec at the moment, the game is early access as well
I meant ships, not aircraft
In SP ships can have helis only if they have a hangar to store them
The RQ-2 drone for the Iowa isn't modelled currently.
No the Iowa's drones are not in game, and yes they could absolutely spot for the Iowas.
11:31 "She didn't put chaff out" 😏
BTW Cap, the SS-N-12 sandbox can be guided by datalink.
and an ssn12 is a serious amount of boom boom... its up there with a V2 hit
The biggest question is if the Slava would perform that well as we all know what happened to the original Slava.
I'm a simple man. I see an Iowa, I like and comment.
Yeh me too. Sad to see her go.
A lot of American sailors I talked with mentioned respect for the Slava class, and though I took them at their word, it's really something to see for yourself. Well done, Russia; that's a hell of a ship!
In light of recent developments where a couple of missles and unmanned attack drones take out a capital ship, could you model that with various ships and conditions? Sure, we heard the excuse that maybe the radars weren't working or operator error and such. Can factors such as that be modeled?
they definitely got the missile launch smoke right in this game
The final battle is going to be Slava vs Tico Mk26.
The RQ-2 Pioneer could be used for Reconnaissance and spotting at about 100nm away from the Iowas. I guess an H2 could be used in its place, along the lines of what the KA-25 role.
can also be shot down in seconds.
@@riskinhos You mean like they were in 1981 over the Bekaa Valley or in 1991 over Kuwait and Iraq when Missouri and Wisconsin used them against the Republican Guard ?
@@00calvinlee00or when a group of Iraqi soldiers surrenders to one of the Wisconsins Pioneers?
@@00calvinlee00 you mean like the ultra top secret state of art UAV RQ-170 that usa offered to Iran?
@@riskinhos SO! YOU SEE IT! MADE IN USA? VERY GARBAGE AND RUBBISH! IN THE WORLD! SOVIET ARE THE BEST AND PERFECTION! EVEN RUSSIA TODAY CAN WIN EVERYWHERE OF BATTLEFIELD! VICTORY BELONG TO RUSSIAN!
F10 lets you switch sides cap.
Its weird the CIWS were so ineffective against a supersonic missile. I could see if they were hypersonic, and know both the Harpoons and Tomahawks are subsonic missiles. but would have thought the CIWS would have at least got some of the Vulcan Missiles.
Agreed.
Phalanx was made against subsonic missiles. Definitely not against Mach 3 ones. Absolutely not against Mach 3 4,000lb ones.
I wonder if the flak AoE is well modeled? There were so many very near misses that would probably shred an aircraft, but do the missiles just not have that much vulnerable avionics? I would think that a near miss by a 5”38 shell would do a number to anything within 50 feet of detonation with even WWII era VT fusing
The flak isn't actually "modelled". The game runs calculation on RNG to see if flak and CIWS intercept a missile. The bullets are nothing more than visual effects that just play over the calculations.
As beautiful and powerful as an Iowa is, it was not built to survive in a missile environment, she just doesn't have the air defense required.
I would love to see a best out of 3 for rounds in the future so it's not as much rng of missiles locking or not. Also, it's cool to see a double Elimination bracket and have fights that are primary ships with an escort(s). not exactly sure how u make that even though.
Great idea! Will consider.
13:30 that crews pants would be soiled. But amazing job.
Meanwhile in reality, these russian rust buckets couldn't even shoot down two Neptune missiles.
Do you know in what condition the ship was when it left for its last mission?
@@ГеоргийМурзич In a very russian condition. They probably shouldn't have been going on a mission if it was in such a terrible condition, don't you think? Then again, that'd keep all the orcish fleet in ports forever...
Theoretical paper values for russian systems always overestimate the effectivity.
Mainly they ignore the crippling corruption and absolute ineptitude of the russian crews.
@@gebus5633 russia≠USSR. Not comparable in the slightest.
@@barbarapitenthusiast7103 Same garbage in a different color bag.
soviet union had to rely on NATO countries for food support at times, pretty much ended in famine.
@@gebus5633 fun fact, the only food the soviets imported was grain. Another fun fact according to the CIA the average soviet citizen consumed over 3100 calories in the mid 1980s, compared to americans 3300.
Also, lets ignore the fact the soviet economy and military budget were 10 larger than that of russia. Ignore the political and geopolitical differences, and then, and only then, are they comparable.
Iowas were never meant to sail alone, they were still WW2 era battleships, which is why they were better at gun engagements
The Slava needs a maintenance modifier, i.e. only 1 or 2 CIWS actually working, or the radar beyond off because it disturbed the satcom ;-)
What if in future competitions, tournaments and such, the capital ships had escorts?
Yup, but again I need a rule set. How do we keep the escorts fair etc?
To further the point on how dominate the Iowa's are in close surface-to-surface combat, they easily could've won that "extra" round with only their secondary 5 inch guns.
To be fair, World War II showed us that the very concept of a battleship is obsolete. The US battleships in 1943, '44 and '45 were most useful for shore bombardment and did very little (if any) ship-to-ship gunnery. The most powerful battleships ever built - Yamato and Musashi - achieved next to nothing. Arguably, they diverted valuable steel and manpower away from more fruitful options. Bismark sank the battle cruiser HMS Hood (with a lucky shot that went into a magazine by passing below Hood's armour belt) but was disabled by a torpedo from a Fairey Swordfish biplane, and was later sunk by torpedoes launched from destroyers. Tirpitz spent almost her entire war hiding from the Royal Navy.
HMS Avenger's 4.5" gun, shot down an Exocet missile in the Falklands war.
I would love to see another tactical competition
Without AWACS support
Also having the distance between the ships be the max range of the shortest range ASuM ignoring missiles like the silex for ships that carry other anti-ship missiles
Originally I thought of having them at the maximum range of the longest-range missile but then the USSR would win all of the time except for the frigates
What is the solution for the target spotting that I brought up in this vid?
Do a battle where the Russians make the mistake of getting within range of the 16" guns. That would be fantastic
1000kg warhead but the Iowa has some thick belt armor. How bad would a hit really be?
The armor belt is small
At Mach 3? Worse than anything that could have hit it in WWII at meaningful distances.
@@sergeychmelev5270 nah, a 14" shell hits harder and is made to be armor piercing. These missiles would make a big boom but not put the ship in danger of sinking.
@@trentvlak ever heard of Fritz-X sinking Roma? Ant it was traveling at less than Mach 1. Ever hear of a battleship sunk by a 14in shell? Yeah, me neither.
Thanks for the boom boom! No one should be upset with the result. We all know these battles don't factor in naval doctrine or strategy, so it's purely grudge match type stuff. The modernized Iowa's were never meant to go out and play on their own. Plus, we all know the real-world score is what matters most. 🛳😁
Regarding the missiles ultimately hitting the same sunk ship or resulting in less than ideal targeting based on their onboard radars and going terminal, I'd agree that's realistic for the 1980's.
For modern anti-ship missiles, I'd be willing to wager virtually all of those new models have a combination of additional programming, sensors, and/or datalink to coordinate efficient attacks. I'd guess it's somewhere around 50/50 as to the Harpoons specifically receiving such upgraded capabilities.
I know the LRASM and Naval Strike Missile are reported to have infrared and an AI-assisted database of pre-loaded enemy ship profiles. They are designed to coordinate between each other to not only select the most appropriate target but to also hit the most vulnerable or critical areas of the targetted ship.
As for Soviet/Russian missiles, call me crazy, but I doubt they've had too many upgrades/new variants since this era. Their ships certainly didn't receive a load of upgrades or even proper maintenance (Moskva), so why would we believe all of their old weapons would be overhauled?
Awesome
How about a 5 ship competition. Each player chooses five ships from a country or coalition with a tonnage limit so they can’t choose 5 capital ships. Two rounds, one as AI control and one in player control so both players get a chance at manual control. Third round is a tie breaker if needed.
I wonder if the difficulty changes the ability of the Friend AI vs opponent?
They should reactivate USS Wisconsin aka as the big whiskey. BB -64 Iowa Class Battleship. The navy needs to make an auto loading version of the Iowas with modern technology keeping 16 inch guns.
Battleships are dead, dead and dead they are a thing of the past. As powerful and mighty they were in their heyday the battleship as a class of ship is simply too much of a liability in the modern battlefield let alone the resources allocated for the maintenance, manpower etc needed to operate one which would be better suited for a class of brand new modern guided missile cruisers
Anyone know if 80's era Iowas still had their armor, and if so, how would it have effected these hits?
The 80's era Iowas had every bit of armor the WW2 versions did. But it would not affect these hits. These missiles are designed to sink supercarriers.
I wonder how well the armor on the ships is modeled
There is a reason why the navy retired the battleship design. Can’t compete in long range battle. Possibly if the ships started out closer it would be different. Maybe put an island between the two ships. No line of sight (no awacs) bring them close to as 15 miles.
But they retired them in the 90s, even put them back in service to tank soviet missile Cruiser attacks, just like with most of these scenarios it doesn't account for doctrine and task Forge composition
In the first round (1v1) the Iowa never even fired its CWIS as well as chaff. When one side does zero self defense while the other sides does then the outcome will be obvious.
Well Sir, I have to point that you picked a wrong match. In terms of tonnage and capability, Tico and Slava are closer for battle, not refitted WWII ship with no SAM at all.
I’m pretty sure you said 50 mile and not 50km starting distance. If both steamed ahead that would put in Iowa gun range in about 15-18 minutes.
Yup 50 miles. I think the guns can fire at around 20 miles.
Do a fleet battle with one of each ship in this battle series.
Will do after series.
Hope someone makes a AI(both sides) mod for stuff like this. I love the competitions you do Cap.
I'm actually not surprised. Iowa was a Battleship that was modernized in the 1980s to support landing operations with its massive 16-inch guns, not to be a ship hunter. The Slava class, on the other hand, was designed to hunt US Supercarriers. I think the Zumwalt would do better against the Slava. Cap, can you model the Zumwalt in Sea Power?
The slava was not ment to hunt carriers. That was the Job of the subs.
No PHM's?
LOTS of PHMs: ruclips.net/video/XoQhcyBNaNk/видео.html
Honestly, I think your simulator is inaccurate. The Sandbox missiles would not reliably penetrate the armor belt of the Iowa. The Phalanx has proven to be incredibly effective while the AK-630 CIWS proved to have mediocre accuracy. The Tomahawks are stealthy sea-skimmers with three to four times the range of the Sandbox, whereas Sandbox has a high-altitude flight profile for most of its flight (making it easy to track) and a substantial radar cross-section.
That said, they are two ships with very different missions. A more accurate match-up would be the Slava against the Ticonderoga.
The bazalt has range of 297nm. More than the tomahawk.
And dont forget, tomahawks are subsonic and are easy to intercept because of it
Phalanx is useless against Mach 3 missiles, let alone 4-ton Mach 3 missile. AK-630 would have at least some chance of downing it, given its shells are almost x4 heavier than those of Phalanx. Tomahawks are not stealthy, very slow, and very easy to get shot at over the sea surface since their terrain-following capabilities are useless there. That's exactly why they never replaced Harpoons on any single ship. Finally, a 2,200lb Sandbox warhead at Mach 3 would be hitting the ship with x8 more energy than a 16in shell fired at 20-30 miles.
As always, it was a fun video! However, Iowa really needs to be broadside for its defenses to be effective.