Could Modern US Tanks & Artillery Win The 1943 Battle Of Kasserine Pass? (Wargames 33) | DCS
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 июн 2024
- 0:00 Intro
0:53 Details
3:41 FIGHT!
Other Kasserine Vid: • Could Modern Jets Win ...
SPONSORS
Winwing: www.wwsimstore.com/STORE
Winwing USA: fox2.wwsimstore.com/STORE
Sponsor Reviews: • Sponsor Reviews
USEFUL LINKS
GRIM REAPERS(RUclips): / @grimreapers
GRIM REAPERS 2(RUclips): / @grimreapers2
GRIM REAPERS(Odysee): odysee.com/$/invite/@grimreap...
GR PODCASTS: anchor.fm/grim-reapers
DCS TUTORIALS: / @grimreapers
DCS BUYERS GUIDE: • DCS World Module Quick...
DCS OFFICIAL SITE: www.digitalcombatsimulator.co...
ONE TO ONE LESSONS: grimreapers.net/one-to-one-le...
DONATE/SUPPORT GRIM REAPERS
MERCHANDISE: www.redbubble.com/people/grme...
PATREON monthly donations: / grimreapers
PAYPAL one-off donations: www.paypal.me/GrimReapersDona...
SOCIAL MEDIA
WEBSITE: grimreapers.net/
STREAM(Cap): / grimreaperscap
STREAMS(Other Members): grimreapers.net/gr-twitch/
FACEBOOK: / grimreapersgroup
TWITTER: / grimreapers_
DISCORD(DCS & IL-2): / discord (16+ age limit)
DISCORD(TFA Arma): discordapp.com/invite/MSYJxbM (16+ age limit)
OTHER
CAP'S X-56 HOTAS MAPS: drive.google.com/open?id=1g7o...
CAP'S WINWING HOTAS MAPS: drive.google.com/drive/folder...
THANK YOU TO: Mission Makers, Admin, Staff, Helpers, Donators & Viewers(without which, this could not happen) xx
#WarGames #GRWarGames #Kasserine #Pass #DCSQuestioned #GR #DCSWorld #Aviation #AviationGaming #FlightSimulators #Military 
Игры
This is basically, will the abrams run out of ammo before Rommel runs out of tanks?
Tune in next time to find out on the next thrilling episode of exactly what you think will happen will happen
Even a basic (now obsolete) Abrams carries 45 AT rounds, and will kill 80% of those types of targets per shot, out to 3 km. Do the math.
Here's the math: One Abrams could wipe out the entire German tank battalion by itself.
Also if they really needed they could use their .50 SLAP rounds bc on some parts of the Tiger it only has 25mm of armor and the SLAP can go through 34mm.
@@duthimer219 25mm on the roof. Hard for the Abrams to hit.
As an old M60 tanker, heck, we could have done that with company of tanks and old school M109s. "Driver, stop, Gunner, HEAT, tank."
@@victorfinberg8595 *Up to 3km _while moving._
From an M1A1 gunner's seat Desert Storm perspective... every round I put on a T-72 was a full pen watch the tracer bounce off the ground behind them thing. The Pz IVs and Tigers didn't stand a chance, you wouldn't even need to break out the Silver Bullets (M829A1 APFSDSDU).
I want to be an M1 armor crewman, should I do it?
what unit ?
@@anthonyhurst5898 C co 2/34 Armour with 1st ID.
@@LeonidasRex1 D co. 1/33 AD with 3rd AD
@@LeonidasRex1 I was TC of C-13 C 2/34 Armor 25th ID in Vietnam 69-70
I LOVE that you chose the 6TH MLRS unit! I was 6/27FA BN from 2001-2007! STEEL RAIN!
Cool
I knew that unit sounded familiar. I had to look it up but you guys were 75th BDE. I was 1-14 FA in 214 BDE 2001-2006. I think our battalion buildings were only a few buildings apart (ours was 3419).
5/17 th FA 1993-95 6/37 95-96 then I went to WSMR as a 13 M loved it got to shoot the ATACMS most all variations and tons of live rockets both guided and standard along with a 12 pack of mine layers.
GSRS Grid Square Removal Service also known as MLRS
I didn't serve with the 6/27th but I did serve with the 56th FA BD. If DCS used them it would be a VERY short scenario - It was Pershing Missiles.
I mean it's just like shooting fish in a barrel. There's no WWII tank capable of penetrating the front of an Abrams, even at point blank range. Besides that, Abrams just lazes the target and fires. The tank does all the aiming work for you, 99% guaranteed hit every single shot. The Germans, in their Panzers and Tigers however will inevitably miss the vast majority of their shots.... but even if they landed, they're not gonna do anything
Only problem an M1A2 is going to have is running out of rounds in that target rich environment.
That's why ya aim for the thicc booty on the Abrams. 70 tons of death, she thicc.
plus the firing rang for abraums is 2 mils but ww2 tanks at best had a 550 yard rang and there's no active gun stabilisers.
@@battlekid6177 not to be "that guy" but 1-3 kilometers were the effective and preferred engagement ranges of tigers, panthers, and their self propelled gun varieties. 550 would be medium to "short" range for German "big cat" tanks. Panzer IV engaged at 1-1.5 kilometers depending on the model in 1943.
@@battlekid6177 550 yards was nothing for a big gun in any time, especially ww2.
"How many Tigers can a single M1A2 take out?"
"Well, an M1A2 carries 42 rounds of ammunition. So if the Tigers advance in line formation, 126 or so."
"Imagine that coming towards you"
Abrams: I'm not outnumbered, I'm in a target rich environment
As an actual Abrams driver, I would have been drooling uncontrollably. We would have needed LOGPAC to load more rounds. And it was probably warm, so crank the NBC unit and plug the hose in near your crank for max cooling. And the driver has the best position in the tank. If it’s snowing, the heater is right next to you. Driving in NVG’s sucks. But you’re a tank. Sorry about your barn/house/car/hydrant…
I was thinking about being an M1 armor crewman, should I go for it?
fill it all with MPAT too
@@jacksonzerillo2406 If you have normal color vision. My dream was to be on an M1... I ended up on the M109 😤
Just as long as some German TC doesn't get lucky and damage your tracks
@@jacksonzerillo2406
Go for it mate. You won't Regret it. Awesome job.
I was at ft Knox on business and had a couple of hours to kill back when it was an armor base. I found a side road that led to an observation post overlooking a range…. Every couple of minutes two tanks would roll up and engage targets and sometimes between rotations cobras and apaches would pop up and engage targets….. really great show until the military police showed up and invited me to go elsewhere…there were harsh words and a memo….still a great way to kill some time
If we were Russians, we could have had drinks & enjoyed the show. Americans are uptight... for your safety.
"harsh words and a memo"! 😄 I dearly hope that memo was strongly worded. 😆
@@JoeMCool it was but they sent it to my police chief apparently not realizing I was the police chief….I responded by smacking my self lightly on both wrists
@@streetcop157 this is an excellent story 👏
I'm sorry I didn't understand, why did the military police gave you a memo?
And that's not using all the capabilities of the modern tank. Do it at night, using night vision and everything else, and run the Abrams into the German laager before they even move. Heck, you could replace the Abrams with M2 and M3 Bradleys and have one helluva fun run, too.
As long as the fight is at night badically any modern armored vehicle equipped with rudimentary anti tank weapons could win against a WW2 force.
CV9040s with 40mm/L70 bofors autocannons firing APFSDS...
These guys never do anything at night, which is where the US plays.
My father fought in this battle and many others against Rommel. He was in the NG when the war started and eventually was sent overseas in the Army. At one point he was part of a group attached to a British Chemical Battalion but I am not sure how long this lasted. He lost many friends throughout his term of service. I remember him talking about reaching over to tell a friend it was clear and he pulled back a handful of scalp and brains. Dad was injured after a battle by a booby trapped rifle and his left hand was shattered. They did rebuild it but some fingers never worked quite right. Needless to say he suffered from PTSD that was never really monitored. If he was drinking thunderstorms caused extreme reactions and I was pulled down behind furniture many times because of "flashbacks".
Knowing about the battle of 73 Eastings (from Gulf War 1), these results were not at all surprising. You guys should try this scenario again, but, with modern US infantry (with javelins and other ATGMs) instead of modern tanks and arty.
Our unit shot support for 2nd Cav. It's also called the Battle of Norfolk. It was a hairy few days, and a really bad night.
@@robertcottam8824 That all supposes that the goal of the high-tech force is just regime change/pacification of the low-tech nation. If the US involvement in those conflicts had, instead, been simple extermination/replacement of the locals, the results would have been *very* different!
The big handicap that the US faced was the fact that there was a local population (that we *didn't* want to kill) for the enemy force to hide among. We, effectively, had to fight with both hands (and leg) tied; not using most of our available firepower.
We *could* have rendered both countries devoid of human life; but, that would have been counter-productive to our actual goals.
@@robertcottam8824Low-skill? The 'Murcans? Hmm... that's a bit of a underestimation here.
@@randlebrowne2048How could it have been anything else than counterproductive, anyway?
@@robertcottam8824Murca, not very good at war?? Then how come they are still the most militarily powerful of all the Western Hemisphere, if not of the world? Once again, you are underestimating them. It never did any good to underestimate the US military forces.
The question is: how many tanks could the M1s annihilate before the barrel melted?
it would be a lot. ive never been told there is a limit as to how many rounds the gun tube is limited to, only how many crew members can take and still be considered safe concussion levels
The range on our Abrams was 5000 meters. I could laze out to that and any target at 1200 meters it felt like I was almost touching it so they never really felt far at all. My first training target shot was a moving tank at 3700 meters. It's just fun stuff
I had a wing tank hit at 7500, but it was at NTC and they had all the time in the world to bracket the target.
Isnt effective firing range 2000 meters?
@@arhumzia6360 no not at all they say for us 5000 is the max effective range but only due to the LRF not being able to go out but you can eyeball it if you really wanted to with the gas sight
@@thetwangler1805 that is what my wing tank did. Manually elevated and traversed using the GAS. 1-66 & 2-72 Armor.
@@andylimb pretty wild shot but I believe it. NTC had pretty much no limits if you wanted to see or hit a target
If an Abrams can get bushwhacked at close range by a T72 and have the round bounce off (as told to me by the platoon sergeant whose tank it was), then even the '88 wouldn't have any effect.
The German tanks wouldn't be firing on the move because they didn't have gyro stabilizers back in WW2. The US infantry would be equipped with Javelins + Carl Gustaf recoilless rifles so the infantry alone could probably lay waste to the German armored battalion from range.
But then again, the US army being the US army.... They'd contrive a way to f*ck *p - as always...
Plus ça change...
Didn't the first models of the M22 Locust have a gyro-stabilized gun?
A very good demonstration of why symetric warfare is no longer a thing.
Having symetric warfare abilities will always be a must. It's the armed forces' core job, after all.
It's just mainly about deterrence, nowadays.
I guess.
I want to thank the Grim Reapers for your entertaining videos, and all you veterans for your service. Freedom isn't free!
DPICM MLRS is the definition of "Bad guys can't be in that direction, if that direction doesn't exist anymore!"
35/40 years of technology difference. Obviously the cold war ended so we don't push as hard and the US just upgrades the M1 but its staggering how much tech evolves in such a short time.
I still wouldn't want to take a circa 1989 M1A1 Abrams up against a circa 2022 M1A2 SEPv3 Abrams. There have still be some pretty significant technological leaps in the last 30 years.
@@gareththompson2708 Ah 100% 120mm vs 105 and the improvements in networking and fire control plus all the stuff that we aren't allowed to know.
@@AJPMUSIC_OFFICIAL The M1A1 had a 120mm gun. It was the original M1 that had the 105mm. But the M1A2 SEPv3 has better ammunition.
And of course better fire control, thicker armor, thermal optics for the commander (M1-M1A1 only had thermals for the gunner), a more efficient engine, etc...
@@gareththompson2708 engine is the still same .
It just lacks the APU.
Don't be so sure about that Cold War ending just yet... we might be getting a part 2
Even if Zee Germans had guns that could penetrate the M1 Armour, all the Abrams would have to do is begin moving (while still being able to fire)
And the artillery would shoot-and-scoot, too.
True. But in order to do that, the US would need adequately-trained servicemen. That is VERY rare.
@@robertcottam8824 Bull shit. Ask the Republican Guard...
I would imagine that the germans having to stop to fire accurately doesnt help. How about flipping it and having the US attacking and the Germans static.
Whitman could shoot on the move and I'm sure other German TC's figured it out but they weren't trained for it. It was the same for Sherman crews. Most of the US tanks crews never took advantage of the Sherman's stablized gun's ability to shoot on the move.
Won't make much difference. Drive the Abrams up to 3 km from the Germans. Sit and watch all the German rounds bounce (half of them will miss). Meanwhile you are killing the German tanks at the rate of several per minute.
@@readhistory2023 whitman was killed by a shoemaker lol
@@readhistory2023
That's true. The US Army was pretty useless during WW2.
@@robertcottam8824what kind of copium are you smoking
6800-meter non-sabot. over 10.000 elevated tested m1a2d. on target 8 of 10 shots. (Yuma range) mystery round. project scraped for super 6 + GPS round. Also tested a new barrel for abrams. Don't know which models.
This is why I love GR. You guys do the fun stuff
The M1A2 is a truly amazing tank. You don't get a true appreciation for this beast until you stand right next to one.
In the spirit of this video, perhaps GR could test out a JU87 D/G Stuka (or similar WW2 equivalent) tank buster aircraft out on the M1A2 and see if they could knock them out routinely?
Top down attack? probably.
With its cannons? Probably not. With 250 kg bombs? Absolutely.
@@hailexiao2770 What about mounted 40mm rounds coming on top of the Abrams' turrets?
At the end of this mighty battle a bunch of the lowest ranked enlisted were given brooms and told to "now go clean all that up".
could we see yourself vs growling sidewinder that would be epic, 2 great sim pilots facing off what a showdown
On 1940s tech vs. Current, the Hydraulic Press channel did a demonstration of a hardened steel 60° cone, pressed 450 tonnes into 45mm armor steel from a T-34 upper plate, and it took considerable force but did punch through it. A modern AR500 armor plate blunted the cone with the same pressure.
Now imagine how this would go down in real life, with dynamic action, and infantry equipped to fight armor; portable ATGM launchers are no joke, either! (Obviously, I know that can't be modeled in DCS; just fun to think about.)
Why can't that be modelled in DCS? 😢
@@Briselancemoney, lag
Ohh man this is beautiful, beautiful just like that B1 strike you did on the enemy convoy. Love this.
GET SOME
This is like space ships fighting camel mounted troops.
M1A1 -the AMP is to be effective against bunkers, infantry, light armor, and obstacles out to 500 meters, and will be able to breach reinforced concrete walls and defeat ATGM teams from 500 to 2,000 meters
Only discovered your channel a couple of weeks ago and I’d only seen naval sims till now. But now I’m seeing a land battle which makes the channel twice as awesome 👍
If you've never been near a 155mm howitzer firing...it's an experience. That earth-shaking *thud* when it goes off....
2022 to 1943 is 79 years apart. If you go back 79 years from 1943, you are in 1864 - smack in the middle of the American civil war. Would weapons from the civil war be a viable in WW2? Perhaps not. None the less, K fans these videos very interesting.
> Would weapons from the civil war be a viable in WW2?
1860 Henry rifles would be very viable in WW2 viable in close combat. You wouldn't do very well against enemies with submachine guns or semiautomatic rifles, but against enemies with Mosins or Mausers you'd have the advantage.
Shermans, .50 machine gun nests, and 105 howitzers from WW2 vs Civil War napoleon smoothbore cannons and massed musketfire?
@@rikk319 in other words, their weapons systems would be more like "I spit in your general direction"
Patton would have loved this! I know I did. I always wonder what just one squadron of modern fighters would have done in the hands of the allies . Hell, just 35 F-4E's with sufficient fuel for 3000 sorties. 1500 GBU-15's. 100,000 rounds for the gun, and craploads of AIM7 and AIM9 missiles. I think we could have wiped out the Nazi war machine in about two weeks. Maybe less. A nice dream......
“You carpeted them”
“You didn’t even use a bomber”
“But you still carpeted them!”
Ahhh this is first time I’ve seen this!
Very cool
I just learned the 155’s don’t have to hit targets , getting close is pretty much the same as direct hit! The Missiles are Amazing and if these are close to how they work I’ll be buying a lot of those .
Yes! There is some 88 damage to the Abrams. A couple of dents in the armor and needing of the new paint job.
May as well have a Abram's v battle of agincore bowman deployment. Technology changed for a reason
I'm surprised that the Paladins didn't have their sister vehicle along for the ride. The M992, also known as the C.A.T. was the unarmed (though, with crew served weapons on the top) track vehicle that carried the rest of the gun crew's ammo, and they would have realistically resupplied the gun as they were firing. They would typically be carrying an additional 95 rounds for the gun, in addition to the propellant charges to make them go boom. lol
Are infantry shouldered ant-tank weapons modeled in DC? If so, can we see a play through where the WWII US infantry are equipped with NLAW and or Javelin's??? Topical sort-of-ish...
It would be a joke, the Javelin can out range most WW2 tanks.
Hey cap, got a cool video idea. Its’s sorta Like the birds and the bees, but one side gets helis and one side gets fighter jets. The helis have to get from one airbase to another airbase, but can be attacked by fighter jets. However, the fighter jets can only use unguided and laser guided bombs to hit them.
Oooo I like it!
@@grimreapers Happy to help! Ill be flying with you guys too. You can load up 10 a10s with 16cbu87s each. It’ll be hilarious
All you guys needed was a squadron of A-10 Warthogs to rain fire from on high.
BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
Can you do thisfor both german and Russian against modern like you did here for the battle of kursk
rgr
That german camouflage would be the colour of my underpants if I was in one of those tigers
Agreed, overly one-sided yet very satisfying to watch! Video Valued by Valued Viewer - Fly Army! 🚁
ICM works fine on modern tanks so it would slaughter the WW2 junk. Their top armor was less than a inch thick.
I pretty much already knew.The Abrams and the M270.Were going to win the battle.
lol an 88 wouldnt even scratch an Abrams at any range!, you could replace every German tank in that battalion with the Maus wielding the 12.8 cm Pak 44 and it wouldn't worry the Abrams!
Perhaps some AH-64 air support to the rescue.
Luv these hypothetical battles :) Thanks GR!
Imagine its 2050 and SU-57, SU75, F-22, F-35 , J-20 and J-31 fighters team up and do a formation on the sky to fight aliens, man that'll be so cool and awesome to watch
In 2050, we'd probably have some better planes than even those.
SU-75 doesn't exist. Su-57 is, like, 4 planes. And anything starting with a J is a Chinese piece of shit. Tell me: what the fuck does China make that's considered "quality"? It's a nation of cheap ass knockoffs.
The DPICM that the MLRS units were firing might not have been very effective against the German tanks, but a 155mm HE round, if it were to score a direct hit, would have wrecked them. Would have been interesting also to give the Paladins Excalibur ammunition, if that were possible.
Finally, as a former 13B myself, who crewed on a M109A6 Paladin...rockets aren't real artillery. Hahaaaa
Thank you for your service! =^[.]^=
But both will do a such a number on an open topped half track that it's not even funny, just tragic...
@@SonsOfLorgar Oh, hell yeah. DPICM would be absolutely brutal against soft targets and lightly armored targets.
@@Raycheetah It's one of those things you don't miss until you stop doing it, is the best way I can explain. Hope you have a good day.
@@johncee853 Well, the earlier versions of Excalibur didn't do anything any differently than your plain Jane HE rounds, except for they were a hell of a lot more accurate. I had read where US troops had called for artillery fire where Excalibur rounds were dropped to within something like 150 or 160 feet of their positions. Excalibur S though has tracked and defeated moving targets in testing though. I found this on a Defense News website...
"The Army is also aiming to compete for Cannon-Delivered Area Effects Munitions this fiscal year, which would upgrade the Excalibur airframe with an armored target seeker and will be able to defeat “moving and imprecisely located armored targets at long ranges” and will be fully compatible with the Army’s howitzers as well as ERCA and the M777 Extended-Range version, according to fiscal 2020 budget documents."
I think halfway through that the American tanks should have charged ahead. IRL that would have been a morale killer.
CAP, you mention in your assessment at the end, what if anything a WWII tank could do to a modern tank. I'm a former Armor Officer and current MI officer and I often think through different equipment mixes and how much obsolete force would be required to overwhelm a modern force. How well would a M1A2, Leopard2A6, Challenger2, hold up against a PLT/CO of Tigers or Panthers in a scrum? A few recommendations have been posted below, but here is my recommendation: Determine what the absolute minimum force would be required for a modern armored combat team to destroy the 10th Armored BDE in this scenario? I think, you must run the scenario during daylight to preserve historical accuracy of the German force, but decrease the modern force size to 1x M1A2 Plt (4x tanks x 40rds = 160 shots) and 2x M2A2 Mech Plts (25mm + TOW2 Missiles). Then to keep them from getting completely overwhelmed by sheer numbers, have a AH-64 flight (2x 16 Hellfires) on call to reinforce as necessary.
The other quick scenario would be 4x Tigers (dispersed) vs 1x M1A2 starting at 500m and see if the platoon of Tigers can get any penetration shots on the Abrams as it maneuvers to engage.
Thanks Aaron, will investigate.
This was pretty good. Cap. Can you do this again with just half the Abrams. Would love to see what that would look like.
These videos are flippin' fantastic. I literally shouted out loud when the first MIRV came out "Holy $@%!!"
Some say the turrets of some destroyed panzer 4s and 6s are still in orbit to this day.
Tank destroyers should have been replaced with bradleys or m901s. Tow missiles FTW lol
How about just inf with javelins?
At some point if you are in the panzers you have to remember you had an appointment across town….” Scuse me guys….just gonna run back to the base….I think I left the kettle on….I’ll be right back’
I use to be in an MLRS unit, 1/27 FAR, 41st BDE (Germany) and 75th Artillery (Ft Sill). They didn't call us "Gridsmashers" for nothing. I'm guessing that you didn't consider the ATACMS missiles. Paladins have a "18 mile" range, 36 miles if using copperheads. The unclassified range of the M270A1 is 180 miles.
Did you use the DU/Sabot rounds on the Abrams?
What a great video. More tanks please. U all doing a great work and so entertaining to watch.
Alternate title: how a zombie apocalypse is patently ridiculous.
Just good old-fashioned fun. More please!
There's vanishingly few weapons systems capable of penetrating the frontal armor of an Abrams, even on the modern battlefield. There's no way a WW2 tank, at any range, is doing it. The Germans never stood a chance. It was just a matter of how fast the Abrams could kill a target and move on. Most one sided tank battle since the Battle of 73 Easting in the first Gulf War.
When I read the title I was like "yes of course... what's the catch?" The innovation in tank technology (gun, armor and more importantly: targeting) makes this a no-brainer. If you could map AI morale, the Afrika Korps would've been maneuvering like mad during the assault... then running once they saw how ineffective their tanks were.
Not sure if it's been mentioned already, but one of the players commented that the MLRS was using "dual-purpose incendiary cluster munition". If he was referring to "DPICM", he's incorrect in his description. "DPICM" means "dual-purpose improved conventional munition". They weren't incendiary munitions, but rather a mix of submunitions that included anti-armor and ant-personnel capabilities. Some also had submunitions that, if the fuse wasn't activated by a target, then is essentially became a mine.
What type of fire missions were the artillery doing? Just traditional or where the angle is changed with each shot so the rounds all impact at the same time?
Every video is amazing, keep it up lads.
I want to see current Swedish army with CV90 and Archer with bonus shells doing this
If it only could have happened this way. I grew up with two friends one of which had a grandfather killed at Kasssere and the other had his father wounded there in a Sherman.
This was so satisfying to watch Cap!
1 company of Abrams could have stopped that attack on their own. The panzers would be destroyed before they were close enough to even fire
Abrams is overkill. A platoon of M48s would probably do the job.
On top of the range and armor superiority the Abrams would have on these guys, the Abrams cam fire effectively while moving without trouble. So just turn around before the enemy gets close enough to fire on you and drive away while still annihilating them.
From what I understand with the battle of kasserine pass, Patton mostly utilized more of his artillery and anti tank units( Half tracks with anti tank gun) against Rommel's tanks. They've taken out most of German units from distance using their long toms(155mm) and those guns did the most of the damage to the Germans before the anti tank units have engaged German armor. Nice video and keep it up.
The 88 MM gun on the Tiger was fast for it's time 3700 fps. but an Abrams would be almost immune except at point blank range. The 120 MM gun on the Abrams has a much higher muzzle velocity 5700 fps. and has a heavier projectile. Except, maybe at extreme angles it would go right through a Tiger's armor. There's pictures where it went through the enemies gun barrel
Hey, question. Who designed the bigger bullet rounds for each theater over wars up to know. can you give one over your classic breakdowns for us? Maybe .50 and up. maybe some people see inside those rounds to understand their effectiveness and how and when the used in a fight Thx Cap huuoaa
That was extremely satisfying to watch.
I was my Batailons top Dragon gunner back in the early 90's.
The Dragons a wire guided anti tank missile.
The M1 does have a few week spots.
Right where the turret meets the hull and in the back where the engine exhaust is.
The fun part is, those M270s are at least a generation or two behind the cutting edge. We don't even use the DPICM anymore, because we've found new and more inventive ways to erase grid squares without having to worry about a bunch of dud submunitions after the fact. It's hard to believe having seen that slaughter, but it could have gone so much worse for the Germans.
Image if you let the M270’s reload to unitary and fire a second volley onto that hilltop as the tanks were rolling over.
Also, will DCS allow for time on target missions? It was always glorious to watch all the launchers fire at once.
6/37 (2009-2011) 5/3 (2011-2014)
I want to see this
Great video, well executed destruction of the German ground forces. Just an aside, Cap, have you heard of the Mach Loop? You can see lots of videos about it on here. Not as good as an airshow, but it is free.
I;ve seen the vids but never been.
@@grimreapers I planned going there over two years ago, but as we know something got in the way. One day I will go there just for the day, hoping some of what we see in the videos arrives. Funny thing is I'll be passing through there tomorrow going to Barmouth.
15:30 A driver that crested that hill and saw all of those funeral pyres would either turn around or jump out and start running away.
Next video : find a supercomputer that will run DCS, and reenact the Battle of Kursk. What if the Soviets had had modern Russian tanks?
agree
Well seeing their current and historical track record, it'll be a massive battle of attrition with no clear winner at the end.
HEAT rounds would probably be a better choice for these types of targets, as the penetration is independent of range.
Would love to see more modern tanks go up against each other the way you do your other videos
love your 'what if' re-enactments Cap. be interested to know how long these scenarios take to set up in DCS. Are we talking hours, days ??
Varies wildly depending on bugs encountered etc. Anywhere from 2 hours to half a week.
The rain is falling through the mist of sorrow that surrounded me.
The sun could never thaw away the the bliss that lays around me.
Let it rain, let it rain,
Let your love rain down on me.
Let it rain, let it rain,
Let it rain, rain, rain.😁😁📜
Yeah, if any force that wasn't actually an ever-advancing AI push were to encounter this scenario, they likely would have broken by the end of the second MLRS salvo. Losing entire flanks in seconds tends to make people pull off their white underwear to shove on a stick and don their brown trousers. I would imagine that when the Panzers and Tigers hear their flanks just start melting, and then seeing the first half a dozen tanks cresting the hill ahead of them just cease to exist , they'd stop and reevaluate their life choices.
I would also imagine that there wouldn't BE an M1 tank line in the valley, because the Abrams actually has the horsepower to climb the hills and set up a nice killbox.
This sounds like Fort Hood tank training in the 90's on any given day/night of the week
Now give them some air support, too. Lets be kind and do only four Apaches.
Short Answer: *YES!*
No shit!
The dismounted infantry woulda been only challenge for company of tanks and that would only be because barrels heating firing that much as Germans had nothing that could damage anything on an abram accept LRF or optics
Could they win? Will the AI jank? Entertainment will be witnessed.
Using modern communication and tactics would easily win.
Love your stuff - I would love to see a couple of US Army Armored Divisions (2-3) plus support defend the Red Army in Operation Bagration in 1944. That was a massive operation and it fully destroyed the German army in the East in WW2
Forget the fact that the panzers we’re literally bouncing APFSDS off their armour I am more dumbstruck by the fact that the APFSDS could physically bounce instead of shattering like it usually does lol. DCS is one interesting game I’ll say.
Unless they've changed the MTOE since I got out, an MLRS platoon is 3 launchers, not 4, giving each battery 6 launchers, and each battalion 18 launchers. 214th Fires Brigade, inactivated in 2015, was the only MLRS pure brigade in the Army.
I always thought it was 9 launchers per battry. 3 platoons.
@@grimreapers I got out in 2006 and I know there's been a ton of restructuring, so it's possible that they changed the makeup of the units. Fort Sill used to have 4 brigades of artillery, each consisting of 3 battalions; either guns, a mix of guns and rockets, and my brigade that was all rockets. At that time each MLRS battalion was 4 batteries (3 line batteries[A,B,&C] and HHS), each battery had two firing platoons of 3 launchers each(ammo guys at different times were their own platoon, in the firing platoon they supported, or part of the HQ platoon. No one seemed to know what to do with them). All of those units have been deactivated or rolled into 75th Fires Brigade (like my battalion). Also, there could be organizational differences between nations. Just because NATO has a common round for small arms doesn't necessarily mean they have the exact same organization of units.