Cap "we are going to do a simulation of the attack on pearl harbour but it isn't pearl harbour, we are not using the right planes or the correct number, we don't have the correct ships or period specific weapons either" Exactly why I love this channel 🤣
My father flew the F-86 in Korea. Yes, they had ejection seats and no, you didn't want to use them unless you were really desperate. The canopy had to come off first and the damn thing slid BACKWARDS, almost taking your head off in the process. Also, if you were at or below 1000 feet, it was useless. Edit: In addition, after hearing Cap talking about opening a window at 150 knots? Try punching out at 600. I suffered catastrophic engine failure in a 15-C model at relatively low altitude (1875 feet according to the black box). It was eject immediately or burn. You pull the handles and that's all you remember until you're almost on the ground. That was the ONLY time I punched out, thank whomever. It broke my left arm, 6 ribs, and my left ankle. Three months until I was back in the saddle again.
Makes me think we need a sort of “G-out” effect in your vision in DCS upon ejection. It wouldn't be that hard to implement or take up many resources computationally so I don’t see why we couldn’t get that!
@@Mobius118 I don't play the game (yet), but I guess my question is, what would be the point? Once you eject, you're out of the fight anyway. I mean, drama? Realism? Although, if you were to make SAR a feature to return a pilot to the fight (as long as you didn't punch out at 600+...). On a completely different point, did you know that actual military simulators are capable of factoring in your individual physical factors? Example: I could always handle a little more +G's for a little longer without problem, but I'd succumb to red-out a bit quicker than normal. Now THAT would be a nice feature in the game if you asked my opinion, although I imagine it would add another strain on multiplayer servers. Plus, I'd love to see the results if players enter their real world physical data and try to fly high performance aircraft, lol! We aren't a bunch of squat, muscled up, little a-holes for no reason, after all! Heh, the game could even keep it's original name DCS, but the 'C' would stand for 'Cessna', not 'Combat'. Hope I'm not sounding too mean, lol! After all, should all fighters go the unmanned route, there wouldn't be a huge requirement for peak physical fitness.
The USA's top-secret "variable timing" fuse for the 127mm dual-purpose guns was authorized to use by the Pacific Fleet, but use in the European theater was not allowed because they didn't want unexploded shells to be disassembled by Germany (or anyone else, for that matter) and reverse engineered.
By the Battle of the Bulge the VT fuses were released for use both by heavy AA and more importantly, artillery. It was felt that the Reich would not last long enough for them to analyze and copy the proximety fuse.
The first operational type built anywhere to provide ejection seats for the crew was the Heinkel He 219 Uhu night fighter in 1942. In Sweden, a version using compressed air was tested in 1941. A gunpowder ejection seat was developed by Bofors and tested in 1943 for the Saab 21.
Have you tried one where it's just the actual defences there on the day, including the ships and land defences and the local air assets, except instead of being surprised they are ready and waiting? That would actually be interesting and useful....
A distribution would likely also be more realistic considering the enemy can choose its attack vector(s). OTOH, if you distribute the same number of AA guns, then feeding everything from one side would minimize the number of rounds the AA has time to fire at any one aircraft; the stuff on the far side might not even be in range until after the attacker has dropped its load.
@@benjaminshropshire2900 I think it's okay for the distribution to mean some guns aren't firing some of the time. That's partly how they'll deconflict. It seemed to me that there were more than enough guns, they were just tending to all shoot at the same target. Also, the more realistic the better, but this is a mostly a for fun exercise anyway. Cap's allowed to have his fun!
@@neil168 IIRC several studies from that era suggested that it took more or less a fixed number of rounds to down an airplane. If so, the. The rate that airplanes could be dealt with is approximately proportional to the average rate of fire and any gun going silent part of the time reduces that average rate. It would be interesting to run some models to try different targeting strategies: everyone shoots at the reachable threat closest to the ships vs. everyone shoots at the threat they have the best chance of hitting vs. some of each?
Great vid, as always. My understanding is that for land heavy AA guns they would have been director controlled. One director controlling 4 to 6 guns. Each director would pick out a target and focus those guns under its control on that target. As for "not hitting the target directly" check out the AA engagement articles on NAVWEAPS where Iowa scored a direct hit with a 5"/38 on an inbound IJN airplane. The director operator reported that one moment he was looking at a plane, the next he was seeing nothing but an engine and propeller flying through the sky.
HE-219 (sexy airplane) had ejection rails for the pilot in the early 1940's. Thanks for all the time and effort you put in to these scenarios, Cap. Greatly appreciated by us Viewingtons.
it seems like in a lot of these there is an issue with the ships secondaries, the game doesn't let the dual purpose guns be used in the AA role. just the light point defense guns it happens with the modern ships too, their main gun can also be used for AA but the game doesn't allow it.
Love to see this again with distributed AA batteries half on the northern spit as well as the field (maybe some 57's on the middle island in the harbor). Bring the zeroes in groups of 4, 12 planes per spawn. Not sure how close in time you could get them, maybe 2-3 minutes per respawn.
Ejection seats were in ww2 do335 had one It had 4 buttons to activate it and you had to manually eject the canopy. Due to the speed of the 335 pilots kept ripping their arms of as the canopy would fly of faster than they could let go of the jettison handles.
"Why he didn't hit his target? No idea." Moments earlier: "These planes are pretty miserable to fly when they're damaged" "Wowee! It's like a 100mm gatling gun!"
I wonder if the 40 torpedo planes that were part of the attack and came in at a much lower altitude simultaneous to the high altitude bombers would change the outcome of this simulation since the AA battery would have to change altitude firings all the time.
Only apparent problem with the damage model is that graphically you see cockpit damage but the model cannot accommodate the fact that a dead pilot cannot fly
The damage model on the planes was excellent except that each section of a plane was damaged in exactly the same way. Every damaged canopy had holes in exactly the same spots.
Something I would love to see you guys test is an anti-air rocket against bomber formations or fighter swarms. These would be rockets that could reach a high enough altitude, with enough accuracy, with 100 kg to 300 kg warheads that would either explode at a predetermined altitude like anti-aircraft artillery or even better with a proximity sensor. The warheads would be large enough that they would not need to be incredibly accurate, especially if you could fire them in large salvos. This is WW2 (or slightly after) level technology but it was only discussed and never fully developed or fielded. It would be great to a simulation of how that would have gone if (probably the Germans) had gotten something like that together.
Enjoyed the video, however I would like it to be ran back, with a few changes. A time on target attack by the Japanese in waves... I get you probably want to be accurate, but it is more accurate to try and guess it, rather than have the planes come in single file. Secondly, the guns need to be distrubuted more around the habour, a large battery is fine, however I think a few small batteries would be more efficient. Lastly, and I by no means know this myself, other than knowing it is a factor, how many shots can each gun shoot before it wears the barrel out? It could, and probably is in the 1000's, which I doubt each battery did shoot, but I think it would be better if that was modelled, by limiting the ammo of each gun to that number at least as it wouldn't matter if they had the ammo then, the gun is toast till a barrel change.
I would like to request a redo with all the aircraft arriving at the same time or near enough. I'd also have guns either side of the anchorage. Perhaps also have some of the aircraft coming in at low level too. This is assuming the pc can handle it?
Just a mention about ejection seats & WW2 aircraft... most of them did not have such systems due to the fact that an ejection seat requires the overhead canopy to be completely removed from the aircraft before firing off so as not to hang-up on use and possibly critically injure the pilot on ejection. Most planes of the time did not have the provision to "blow-off" the canopy for proper deployment of an ejection system. If such had been available, a lot more pilots might have survived and safety systems on aircraft might have developed faster as a result...
Part of what made proximity fuses so useful was that aircraft flew in formations rather than being drip fed into a meat grinder. Is this worth simulating?
Correct me if im wrong but you guys did a vid before with The MXY-7 OHKA?? Lol dont tell me RUclips took it down??? A 100mm Gatling Gun lmao now thats something I'd like to see!
Directions unclear, added Berlin Flak towers. Hey did you guys know that the USA 90mm AAA gun was actually so advanced that we had them hooked up in batteries of 3 then in groups of 5 fed back into an analog targeting computer in the 1940s in the UK once the US entered the war? We even floated the idea of hooking them up to more advanced navy battleship firing table computers to try to hit V1 and V2 rockets. But they determined it wouldn't be worth it because the dud round rate for the timed and altitude shell fuses was too high that like 1 in every few shells would come back down on London and cause more damage than a V2 strike because of all the American DAKKA it would take to make a successful kill on a V2.
Try again, but based on the info on Wikipedia for M9 Gun Director with the SCR-584 and the 90mm gun M3. Crew only had to load the gun. Use proximity rounds.
The Do335A Pfeil had an ejection seat. It was never mass produced, but damn if it wasn't a beautiful plane. I mean it was a technological dead end, being a prop plane, but still.
Hi Cap. I really appreciate your videos. I don’t have the patience to learn to fly all the different aircraft, so I enjoy it third hand by watching you. Do you mind me asking, how many hours per week do you put into the channel? I’m guessing it’s a lot.. 🤔 Many thanks for keeping me entertained.. 🙂👍
@grimreapers absolutely no idea how you do that. As a father of five, who are all thankfully grown up and out of the house now, I couldn't imagine. But then again I guess I could because I used to work 60 hours a week and this is your full-time job too so carry on.😂 Oh and by the way you do a fantastic job
The "battleships" that were damaged were in fact cruisers. The easiest way to tell is that battleships were named after states, cruisers after cities, destroyers after people.
Still saddened why no company makes a A6M Zero module for DCS. On the other side the IL-2 team refuses citing "not enough data" which I call BS. They could have just at least release one aircraft while working the rest slowly or even "improvise" some of the flight models if really no data.
Ok, so I'm kind of addicted to your channel... but I want to see what might have happened if the US Navy had learned of the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 1st. Perhaps have all the battleships sitting close enough to head for the IJN fleet once they dispatched their planes. Bring the carriers back to lurk near enough to intercept the aircraft... There's something satisfying about watching them get smashed before they sneak in...
If i remember my aviation history correctly the first ejection seat was on the Heinkel He 219 Uhu night fighter. Believe bofors developed a gunpowder ejection seat for the Saab 21 around 42 or 43.
All those old AA guns just put up a metal wall of shrapnel that the warbirds just couldn’t cope with. I know some got through, but those wouldn’t have been acceptable losses for the attackers. I imagine that is exactly what the skies over Germany looked like in 1944-45. I don’t think a freaking bird could fly through all that flak!!
I wonder, could the Hochseeflotte defeat the Pearl Harbor attack fleet? They wouldn't be able to do much against the planes of course, but could they take out the Japanese ships and then survive until the airborne planes run out of fuel? If they can't: how about the Grand Fleet? If even they can't: how about every single ship that was at Jutland? (the Danish trawler isn't needed)
Funfact: in the 1950s the Soviets developed a towed 152mm AA gun. The KM-52. It weighed 33,5 tons, could fire 17 rounds a minute and was, when it was finished in 1954, completely useless. They develop rocket assisted projectiles for it. But... turns out actual guided rockets are better.
What would the WW-2 equivalent of the fleet defense cruiser concept be? If a ship was built to *only* mount AA guns, what would it end up looking like? Would it need much of a mast? Or could it just be 5in gun tubs from bow to stern with smaller stuff stuffed in the gaps?
Next up, the radar-controlled gun aimers from around the tail end of 1944. These devices shot down more V-1s than the fighters or human-operated flak batteries.
I reached my therapeudic dose at about 12 minutes in. Began to eel a little toxic (repetitious, dizzy, lost count) at about 22 minutes. Never did reach LD50
What would happen if the attack were split between attacking as in this scenarios and the other attackers coming in extremely low, firing machine guns to distract/dissuade the AAA personnel from accurate firing? Is that something that can be modeled?
Not reading through all the comments to see if this was addressed; USA invented the proximity fuze and fielded it in 1944. Initially it was only used by the Navy in the Pacific; 5 inch naval guns with proximity fuze's we're the only thing that could consistently stop Kamikazes. Eventually they were used on the 90 mm AA gun in England to shoot down V 1s. The US kept the fuze a secret from the British. They told the Brits that those gunners had exceptional eyesight from eating carrots.
Hey Cap, how about a reimagining of the USS Laffy, the destroyer that survived something like 17 kamikaze attacks including bombs? But in this case, an Arleigh Burke destroyer guns only? Obviously, if it uses missiles they'd wipe the 50 Japanese aircraft out very quickly. But what if you had the 17 planes come in as 1s and 2s, reenacting the real Laffy attack, but allowing the radar controlled guns of an Arleigh Burke destroyer to show the difference between lots of human controlled guns and radar controlled guns.
A bungee-assisted escape from an aircraft took place in 1910. In 1916, Everard Calthrop, an early inventor of parachutes, patented an ejector seat using compressed air... The modern layout for an ejection seat was first introduced by Romanian inventor Anastase Dragomir in the late 1920s. It was successfully tested on 25 August 1929 at the Paris-Orly Airport near Paris and in October 1929 at Băneasa, near Bucharest. The design was perfected during World War II. The first ejection seats were developed independently during World War II by Heinkel and SAAB. Early models were powered by compressed air and the first aircraft to be fitted with such a system was the Heinkel He 280 prototype jet-engined fighter in 1940. One of the He 280 test pilots, Helmut Schenk, became the first person to escape from a stricken aircraft with an ejection seat on 13 January 1942 after his control surfaces iced up and became inoperative. The fighter was being used in tests of the Argus As 014 impulse jets for Fieseler Fi 103 missile development. It had its usual Heinkel HeS 8A turbojets removed, and was towed aloft from the Erprobungsstelle Rechlin central test facility of the Luftwaffe in Germany by a pair of Messerschmitt Bf 110C tugs in a heavy snow-shower. At 7,875 ft (2,400 m), Schenk found he had no control, jettisoned his towline, and ejected.[2] The He 280 was never put into production status. The first operational type built anywhere to provide ejection seats for the crew was the Heinkel He 219 Uhu night fighter in 1942. In Sweden, a version using compressed air was tested in 1941. A gunpowder ejection seat was developed by Bofors and tested in 1943 for the Saab 21. The first test in the air was on a Saab 17 on 27 February 1944,[3] and the first real use occurred by Lt. Bengt Johansson[note 2] on 29 July 1946 after a mid-air collision between a J 21 and a J 22. As the first operational military jet in late 1944 to ever feature one, the winner of the German Volksjäger "people's fighter" home defense jet fighter design competition; the lightweight Heinkel He 162A Spatz
Cap "we are going to do a simulation of the attack on pearl harbour but it isn't pearl harbour, we are not using the right planes or the correct number, we don't have the correct ships or period specific weapons either" Exactly why I love this channel 🤣
I thought we'd never have to see those 190's in drag ever again.
Cursed Zeros.
Best comment I ever read honestly 🤣🤣🤣
It still has explosions in it. That bit is accurate?
@@grimreapersThat's all that matters right?
Though next time S200 please. So the explosions are bigger.
@@grimreapers that’s the most important one cap, good show
My father flew the F-86 in Korea. Yes, they had ejection seats and no, you didn't want to use them unless you were really desperate. The canopy had to come off first and the damn thing slid BACKWARDS, almost taking your head off in the process. Also, if you were at or below 1000 feet, it was useless.
Edit: In addition, after hearing Cap talking about opening a window at 150 knots? Try punching out at 600. I suffered catastrophic engine failure in a 15-C model at relatively low altitude (1875 feet according to the black box). It was eject immediately or burn. You pull the handles and that's all you remember until you're almost on the ground. That was the ONLY time I punched out, thank whomever. It broke my left arm, 6 ribs, and my left ankle. Three months until I was back in the saddle again.
Makes me think we need a sort of “G-out” effect in your vision in DCS upon ejection. It wouldn't be that hard to implement or take up many resources computationally so I don’t see why we couldn’t get that!
@@Mobius118or alternatively.. “Ace Combat” mode where you can do *just a few more G than normal, hehe.
Gaaaaah!
@@warbuzzard7167 Well, that's one way of putting it, lol!
@@Mobius118 I don't play the game (yet), but I guess my question is, what would be the point? Once you eject, you're out of the fight anyway. I mean, drama? Realism? Although, if you were to make SAR a feature to return a pilot to the fight (as long as you didn't punch out at 600+...).
On a completely different point, did you know that actual military simulators are capable of factoring in your individual physical factors? Example: I could always handle a little more +G's for a little longer without problem, but I'd succumb to red-out a bit quicker than normal. Now THAT would be a nice feature in the game if you asked my opinion, although I imagine it would add another strain on multiplayer servers. Plus, I'd love to see the results if players enter their real world physical data and try to fly high performance aircraft, lol! We aren't a bunch of squat, muscled up, little a-holes for no reason, after all! Heh, the game could even keep it's original name DCS, but the 'C' would stand for 'Cessna', not 'Combat'. Hope I'm not sounding too mean, lol! After all, should all fighters go the unmanned route, there wouldn't be a huge requirement for peak physical fitness.
The USA's top-secret "variable timing" fuse for the 127mm dual-purpose guns was authorized to use by the Pacific Fleet, but use in the European theater was not allowed because they didn't want unexploded shells to be disassembled by Germany (or anyone else, for that matter) and reverse engineered.
By the Battle of the Bulge the VT fuses were released for use both by heavy AA and more importantly, artillery. It was felt that the Reich would not last long enough for them to analyze and copy the proximety fuse.
@@gamarus0kragh I forgot about that, but yeah, now that you reminded me! Thanks!
One was likely to splash in the water, but a failed shell would be easier to find on land.
@@m1t2a1 That's why they were allowed in the Pacific
@gamarus0kragh Patton said that proximity fuses at the Battle of the Bulge forced the Germans to change infantry tactics overnight.
The first operational type built anywhere to provide ejection seats for the crew was the Heinkel He 219 Uhu night fighter in 1942. In Sweden, a version using compressed air was tested in 1941. A gunpowder ejection seat was developed by Bofors and tested in 1943 for the Saab 21.
This was a very soothing video. I think the constant explosions sounded like popping corn. And who doesn’t like popcorn? 🍿
agree
Have you tried one where it's just the actual defences there on the day, including the ships and land defences and the local air assets, except instead of being surprised they are ready and waiting? That would actually be interesting and useful....
Wouldn't the guns deconflict better, and perhaps be more effective if they were distributed around the harbour, rather than being in one clump?
That’s a great point!
possibly the shorter range tracer firing stuff nearer to the ships might have helped, but they seem pretty decent from that mass clump
A distribution would likely also be more realistic considering the enemy can choose its attack vector(s).
OTOH, if you distribute the same number of AA guns, then feeding everything from one side would minimize the number of rounds the AA has time to fire at any one aircraft; the stuff on the far side might not even be in range until after the attacker has dropped its load.
@@benjaminshropshire2900 I think it's okay for the distribution to mean some guns aren't firing some of the time. That's partly how they'll deconflict. It seemed to me that there were more than enough guns, they were just tending to all shoot at the same target.
Also, the more realistic the better, but this is a mostly a for fun exercise anyway. Cap's allowed to have his fun!
@@neil168 IIRC several studies from that era suggested that it took more or less a fixed number of rounds to down an airplane. If so, the. The rate that airplanes could be dealt with is approximately proportional to the average rate of fire and any gun going silent part of the time reduces that average rate.
It would be interesting to run some models to try different targeting strategies: everyone shoots at the reachable threat closest to the ships vs. everyone shoots at the threat they have the best chance of hitting vs. some of each?
Great vid, as always. My understanding is that for land heavy AA guns they would have been director controlled. One director controlling 4 to 6 guns. Each director would pick out a target and focus those guns under its control on that target. As for "not hitting the target directly" check out the AA engagement articles on NAVWEAPS where Iowa scored a direct hit with a 5"/38 on an inbound IJN airplane. The director operator reported that one moment he was looking at a plane, the next he was seeing nothing but an engine and propeller flying through the sky.
HE-219 (sexy airplane) had ejection rails for the pilot in the early 1940's. Thanks for all the time and effort you put in to these scenarios, Cap. Greatly appreciated by us Viewingtons.
it seems like in a lot of these there is an issue with the ships secondaries, the game doesn't let the dual purpose guns be used in the AA role. just the light point defense guns
it happens with the modern ships too, their main gun can also be used for AA but the game doesn't allow it.
What a fun video! I found that listening to the William Tell Overture in the background improves it slightly :D :D
Love to see this again with distributed AA batteries half on the northern spit as well as the field (maybe some 57's on the middle island in the harbor). Bring the zeroes in groups of 4, 12 planes per spawn. Not sure how close in time you could get them, maybe 2-3 minutes per respawn.
21:59 the fuse delay on the German 8.8cm Flak-43 was 11 seconds, to get to 30,000 ft or so.
thx
That was pretty much like setting up a bug zapper in front of a nest of yellowjackets and flipping the switch.
Ejection seats were in ww2 do335 had one
It had 4 buttons to activate it and you had to manually eject the canopy. Due to the speed of the 335 pilots kept ripping their arms of as the canopy would fly of faster than they could let go of the jettison handles.
Ta.
thx
so basically you had to decide! either lose your hands or lose your life!
Thank god for technological advancements I guess :)
The 1st ejection seat was on the DO355 the twin engine front and rear engine Pusher propeller plane that was used in combat.
This might of been more interesting if you have waves of 5 aircraft at high alt and waves of 5 at medium to force the guns to change elevation.
The first operational type built anywhere to provide ejection seats for the crew was the Heinkel He 219 Uhu night fighter in 1942.
I love your commentary so much... what a great channel!
HE219 had the first operational ejection seat. I think the salamander had one too (HE 162)
I imagine the empty shell pile would look like the safe in ducktales by the end
Imagine the boom it would bake if something hit the shells stockpiled at/near the position :)
Silly question Cap (or was it rhetorical?)....who DOESN'T like Aviation and Explosions ? When it's the GR's, the more the better !!!
19:15 lmao yeah Cap! P-80 Shooting Star intercept Ju-88's with Variety of Fw190's and Bf109's escorts!🙏👍
Flight of Bf 109G's, flight of Bf 109 K-4's, flight of FW-190 A-8's, and FW-190 D-9's!👍
rgr
@@grimreapers lol at work had to stop, to answer Cap! You're The Man!👍👍
14:22 I would *not* want to be on the receiving side of that flak barrage... that is *scary.*
With so many guns, this has the serious danger of moving the Island backwards!
Also the infinite ammo thing is not enough appreciated in the summary.
"Why he didn't hit his target? No idea."
Moments earlier:
"These planes are pretty miserable to fly when they're damaged"
"Wowee! It's like a 100mm gatling gun!"
I wonder if the 40 torpedo planes that were part of the attack and came in at a much lower altitude simultaneous to the high altitude bombers would change the outcome of this simulation since the AA battery would have to change altitude firings all the time.
It appears that they have timed but not proximity fuses. Long strings of flak at a fixed altitude.
Only apparent problem with the damage model is that graphically you see cockpit damage but the model cannot accommodate the fact that a dead pilot cannot fly
What a cool scenario. I imagine you must have a great server to avoid melting it.
Miraculously while the aircraft are getting chunked by that flak, the bombs they carry look remarkably unblemished!!!!
Extra tough bombs.
Why do I the urge to queue up the "1812 Overture" while watching this?
The damage model on the planes was excellent except that each section of a plane was damaged in exactly the same way. Every damaged canopy had holes in exactly the same spots.
Something I would love to see you guys test is an anti-air rocket against bomber formations or fighter swarms. These would be rockets that could reach a high enough altitude, with enough accuracy, with 100 kg to 300 kg warheads that would either explode at a predetermined altitude like anti-aircraft artillery or even better with a proximity sensor. The warheads would be large enough that they would not need to be incredibly accurate, especially if you could fire them in large salvos. This is WW2 (or slightly after) level technology but it was only discussed and never fully developed or fielded. It would be great to a simulation of how that would have gone if (probably the Germans) had gotten something like that together.
Can't wait to see a genie or bomarc in dcs :)
Enjoyed the video, however I would like it to be ran back, with a few changes.
A time on target attack by the Japanese in waves... I get you probably want to be accurate, but it is more accurate to try and guess it, rather than have the planes come in single file.
Secondly, the guns need to be distrubuted more around the habour, a large battery is fine, however I think a few small batteries would be more efficient.
Lastly, and I by no means know this myself, other than knowing it is a factor, how many shots can each gun shoot before it wears the barrel out? It could, and probably is in the 1000's, which I doubt each battery did shoot, but I think it would be better if that was modelled, by limiting the ammo of each gun to that number at least as it wouldn't matter if they had the ammo then, the gun is toast till a barrel change.
I would like to request a redo with all the aircraft arriving at the same time or near enough. I'd also have guns either side of the anchorage. Perhaps also have some of the aircraft coming in at low level too. This is assuming the pc can handle it?
Just a mention about ejection seats & WW2 aircraft... most of them did not have such systems due to the fact that an ejection seat requires the overhead canopy to be completely removed from the aircraft before firing off so as not to hang-up on use and possibly critically injure the pilot on ejection. Most planes of the time did not have the provision to "blow-off" the canopy for proper deployment of an ejection system. If such had been available, a lot more pilots might have survived and safety systems on aircraft might have developed faster as a result...
And, for the next six weeks, 25 bulldozers and 50 dump trucks worked 24/7 to remove all the empty brass from the gun battery area.
Part of what made proximity fuses so useful was that aircraft flew in formations rather than being drip fed into a meat grinder.
Is this worth simulating?
Rgr
First air tested ejection seat was 44, from a Saab. First real use was in 46, after a collision between a J-21 and a J-22.
Going to be raining shrapnel for a while, gents. Definitely a therapeutic vid.
Correct me if im wrong but you guys did a vid before with The MXY-7 OHKA?? Lol dont tell me RUclips took it down???
A 100mm Gatling Gun lmao now thats something I'd like to see!
It was one of the early naval battles but I'll never be able to find it.
@@grimreapers I remember ;)
That was cool. I'd like to see more battles with heavy flak. There's no way to see how effective the 100mm were vs. 57mm is there?
Directions unclear, added Berlin Flak towers.
Hey did you guys know that the USA 90mm AAA gun was actually so advanced that we had them hooked up in batteries of 3 then in groups of 5 fed back into an analog targeting computer in the 1940s in the UK once the US entered the war? We even floated the idea of hooking them up to more advanced navy battleship firing table computers to try to hit V1 and V2 rockets. But they determined it wouldn't be worth it because the dud round rate for the timed and altitude shell fuses was too high that like 1 in every few shells would come back down on London and cause more damage than a V2 strike because of all the American DAKKA it would take to make a successful kill on a V2.
8:15 - (and so on) looking at the massive holes in the canopy(s), those pilots must to be long dead before their planes are kaput !!
Thanks to GR and Cap. Your content entertains me daily...:) +1
awwww
I’M SO EXCITED HE MENTIONED A “Zerg-rush”!!!!!
Try again, but based on the info on Wikipedia for M9 Gun Director with the SCR-584 and the 90mm gun M3. Crew only had to load the gun. Use proximity rounds.
The Do335A Pfeil had an ejection seat. It was never mass produced, but damn if it wasn't a beautiful plane. I mean it was a technological dead end, being a prop plane, but still.
Is this "Red losses - Blue losses" window a mod or something you're running through the editor?
Hi Cap. I really appreciate your videos. I don’t have the patience to learn to fly all the different aircraft, so I enjoy it third hand by watching you. Do you mind me asking, how many hours per week do you put into the channel? I’m guessing it’s a lot.. 🤔 Many thanks for keeping me entertained.. 🙂👍
It used to be 70 hours per week, but now I have a baby I had to cut it to 45, which has been very difficult.
@grimreapers absolutely no idea how you do that. As a father of five, who are all thankfully grown up and out of the house now, I couldn't imagine. But then again I guess I could because I used to work 60 hours a week and this is your full-time job too so carry on.😂
Oh and by the way you do a fantastic job
Aviation plus explosions. My favourite 😍
Has CH made a Sky Sabre SAM system? Would love to see that in action.
Not yet.
The "battleships" that were damaged were in fact cruisers. The easiest way to tell is that battleships were named after states, cruisers after cities, destroyers after people.
How well would a Patriot battery or CWIS array have defended during the battle of Britain?
Still saddened why no company makes a A6M Zero module for DCS.
On the other side the IL-2 team refuses citing "not enough data" which I call BS. They could have just at least release one aircraft while working the rest slowly or even "improvise" some of the flight models if really no data.
If nothing else, the sheer loses of aircraft and pilots from first air fleet would radically change the Pacufic war
Ok, so I'm kind of addicted to your channel... but I want to see what might have happened if the US Navy had learned of the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 1st.
Perhaps have all the battleships sitting close enough to head for the IJN fleet once they dispatched their planes. Bring the carriers back to lurk near enough to intercept the aircraft...
There's something satisfying about watching them get smashed before they sneak in...
If i remember my aviation history correctly the first ejection seat was on the Heinkel He 219 Uhu night fighter. Believe bofors developed a gunpowder ejection seat for the Saab 21 around 42 or 43.
All those old AA guns just put up a metal wall of shrapnel that the warbirds just couldn’t cope with. I know some got through, but those wouldn’t have been acceptable losses for the attackers. I imagine that is exactly what the skies over Germany looked like in 1944-45. I don’t think a freaking bird could fly through all that flak!!
First ejection seat was He-219 Uhu for operational aircraft
You guys sound like Mystery Science Theater.
I can understand asset limitations, but calling a Pennsacola a battleship is a heck of a stretch
Roger, kind of looks like a mini BB if you squint?
I wonder, could the Hochseeflotte defeat the Pearl Harbor attack fleet? They wouldn't be able to do much against the planes of course, but could they take out the Japanese ships and then survive until the airborne planes run out of fuel?
If they can't: how about the Grand Fleet?
If even they can't: how about every single ship that was at Jutland? (the Danish trawler isn't needed)
Not sure exactly when the first ejection seats showed up, but Martin Baker, a British company became a major manufacturer of them post war.
Funfact: in the 1950s the Soviets developed a towed 152mm AA gun. The KM-52. It weighed 33,5 tons, could fire 17 rounds a minute and was, when it was finished in 1954, completely useless. They develop rocket assisted projectiles for it. But... turns out actual guided rockets are better.
One thing ill never say is , we didn't didn't see them coming...
the durability of the Dora definitely helped the agressors
Not even sure what this was supposed to simulate.
About as accurate as the Kido Butai flying FW-190s.
What would the WW-2 equivalent of the fleet defense cruiser concept be? If a ship was built to *only* mount AA guns, what would it end up looking like? Would it need much of a mast? Or could it just be 5in gun tubs from bow to stern with smaller stuff stuffed in the gaps?
hey cap have you already done a pearl harbor but all the ships and the airfield is active and ready video yet?
10:03 - Observer effect. You changed the outcome by looking at it!
I wonder how the 40mm Bofors would have done? Probably not near as well. Or the German 88mm flak?
I would rather know how many of the CIWS Phalanx would have been needed if they were available during this time in history.
Problem with CIWS as we found is that it carries very little ammo, and runs out very fast. Was not suited to a sustained attack at all for 40 mins.
Next up, the radar-controlled gun aimers from around the tail end of 1944. These devices shot down more V-1s than the fighters or human-operated flak batteries.
One small point : Too bad we didn't saw the cost in amunitions this defense cost.
Conclusion: I believe that's a successful defense.
I cant imagine how hot those barrels would be in real life
You could try the Swedish Visby Class Corvettes with their 57mm Bofors Mark 3 and how well they could change the results.
Is there a way to create a DCS landscape for a virtual WW2 period piece?
I reached my therapeudic dose at about 12 minutes in.
Began to eel a little toxic (repetitious, dizzy, lost count) at about 22 minutes.
Never did reach LD50
What would happen if the attack were split between attacking as in this scenarios and the other attackers coming in extremely low, firing machine guns to distract/dissuade the AAA personnel from accurate firing? Is that something that can be modeled?
Yep it's been a long day and this is excellent therapy!
Gotta luv a bit of GR "hypothetical" mindless violence. 😂
agree
if you would layer the defense with groups of batteries 1/2 mile apart, you would have more efficient use of the batteries without deconfliction.
VT fuses were not used until 1944, Cap.
The first ejection seat was used on the He162A in 1944.
Japanese pilots didn't even have parachutes.
thx
Not reading through all the comments to see if this was addressed; USA invented the proximity fuze and fielded it in 1944. Initially it was only used by the Navy in the Pacific; 5 inch naval guns with proximity fuze's we're the only thing that could consistently stop Kamikazes. Eventually they were used on the 90 mm AA gun in England to shoot down V 1s. The US kept the fuze a secret from the British. They told the Brits that those gunners had exceptional eyesight from eating carrots.
That was like Death and Destruction ASMR 😂
the 100mm guns firing looks like a cluster munition going off...!
Could a single LHD Amphibious Assault Ship with Helicopters and F-35's have saved Pearl Harbor
Another one-- Gepards and IRIS-T's!
Got something similar planned for F-35B
@@grimreapers nice!👍
Where do you get such maps and planes for DCS??
first used martin backer ejection seat that saved a life was in the Whitworth flying wing
When will DCS implement Cthulhu ?
id love to see this done again but with the infamous german Flak 88
Hey Cap, how about a reimagining of the USS Laffy, the destroyer that survived something like 17 kamikaze attacks including bombs? But in this case, an Arleigh Burke destroyer guns only? Obviously, if it uses missiles they'd wipe the 50 Japanese aircraft out very quickly. But what if you had the 17 planes come in as 1s and 2s, reenacting the real Laffy attack, but allowing the radar controlled guns of an Arleigh Burke destroyer to show the difference between lots of human controlled guns and radar controlled guns.
the first ejection seat was developed by a Swedish engineer in 1944😊
A bungee-assisted escape from an aircraft took place in 1910. In 1916, Everard Calthrop, an early inventor of parachutes, patented an ejector seat using compressed air...
The modern layout for an ejection seat was first introduced by Romanian inventor Anastase Dragomir in the late 1920s.
It was successfully tested on 25 August 1929 at the Paris-Orly Airport near Paris and in October 1929 at Băneasa, near Bucharest. The design was perfected during World War II.
The first ejection seats were developed independently during World War II by Heinkel and SAAB. Early models were powered by compressed air and the first aircraft to be fitted with such a system was the Heinkel He 280 prototype jet-engined fighter in 1940. One of the He 280 test pilots, Helmut Schenk, became the first person to escape from a stricken aircraft with an ejection seat on 13 January 1942 after his control surfaces iced up and became inoperative. The fighter was being used in tests of the Argus As 014 impulse jets for Fieseler Fi 103 missile development. It had its usual Heinkel HeS 8A turbojets removed, and was towed aloft from the Erprobungsstelle Rechlin central test facility of the Luftwaffe in Germany by a pair of Messerschmitt Bf 110C tugs in a heavy snow-shower. At 7,875 ft (2,400 m), Schenk found he had no control, jettisoned his towline, and ejected.[2] The He 280 was never put into production status. The first operational type built anywhere to provide ejection seats for the crew was the Heinkel He 219 Uhu night fighter in 1942.
In Sweden, a version using compressed air was tested in 1941. A gunpowder ejection seat was developed by Bofors and tested in 1943 for the Saab 21. The first test in the air was on a Saab 17 on 27 February 1944,[3] and the first real use occurred by Lt. Bengt Johansson[note 2] on 29 July 1946 after a mid-air collision between a J 21 and a J 22.
As the first operational military jet in late 1944 to ever feature one, the winner of the German Volksjäger "people's fighter" home defense jet fighter design competition; the lightweight Heinkel He 162A Spatz
I would like to see the Nike Hercules anti air missiles fight a massive Japanese attack on Pierl harbor
Give Pearl some Flight-3's, they've gotta be able to save the harbor.
We are sorry to inform you that your hearing loss is not service related.
these guns also probably had Remote Power Control
Can you redo this with heavier bombers please. Either just replace the 190s and keep the spawn rate or in a full formation.
They are actually 500lbs bombs, it's just a graphical thing I can't get around to fixing.