Completely unrealistic for a realistic battle simulator.... All modern planes can fly at a greater altitude and Well over 3times faster than any world war II plane. Right off the bat it's impossible for a Japanese zero to shoot down any modern planes. Literally one modern fighter bomber (if ammunition wasn't an issue) could destroy the entire Japanese naval fleet at world war II Pearl harbor
Hence the issue the Iraqis had. One of the tank battles, they had set up their defenses to watch a ridge line. The problem? The mis ranged the ridge line and put it out of range of their dug in tanks but in range of the M1s
Yup. They used weapons ill suited for the task. Mk. 82s would have done well if you came in steep. The Hydra Rocket pods would have smashed up the carriers pretty good or completely destroyed the DDs and Cruisers, on top of being easier to aim and use.
@@tc1817 that sort of thing actually cost Iraq a battle during desert storm. They found a good spot and dug in, watching a ridge. But they made a critical error, they miscalculated the range and dug all their tanks in outside of their own gun range, meanwhile the ridge was within the Abrams gun range. So the Abrams could sit at the ridge and pick off the Iraqi tanks without fear of return fire.
Yup, the only definitive thing I learned from this video is, if we build a time machine to go back and stop this attack from happening, we should leave Simba and Damp at home. How do you f up a tpod in a hot A-10 lmao
So the death of the fleet? I don't think the LRASM would be able to penetrate the belt of any of these ships, but if the LRASM had a pop up mode, it could wreck their super structures and leave them a burning heap in the middle of the ocean.
That wasn't even close to tactical. Cap going kamakazie and the t-pod broken was at best a half hearted effort. Each of you could easily target 1 carrier a piece and take out 3 carriers from 20k before they barely get any planes launched. Within minutes you have all 6 dead. Not to mention you only need 3 bombs a piece in case 1 is a dud so your speed and altitude is much better. I agree though the 130 is just unusable.
Other weapons were also feasible. Hydras and Mk. 82s would have been plenty. Decent damage yield against carriers with comparatively weaker armor and defenses than a modern ship plus the ability to carry a hefty payload of them.
6 carriers, 3 A-10C’s, 1 GBU-10 needed per carrier. You should have loaded 2 GBU-10’s per A-10 instead of overloading them with 6. You could have kept your altitude high and stuck to laser guided munitions - maintaining maneuverability with the lighter load. You have to try again! (And perhaps rewatch your older videos on the A-10 ;))
Those AC-130s need an update that allows you to aim those guns separate from using the control surfaces... That would make this exercise a bit more viable.. or least, less frustrating lol
Yeah instead of having 3 separate C-130's they could have had 1 with full crew and decimated those carriers. Using a method where you can't even aim your guns is pretty poor effort.
Something else I just thought of: The Japanese fleet would have been running with no radar or radio emissions at all in order to remain undetected. They'd not have known the A-10s were coming unless they saw them visually, or they got hit by an LGB.
Honestly based on the results of the Operation Crossroads Nuclear tests I think a MOAB would probably have to hit pretty close to a carrier to actually sink it. In the Able test which was an airburst the carrier USS Independence was 560 Yards (510 meters) away from Ground Zero and the carrier USS Saratoga was 2,265 yards (2,071 meters) away and neither of them sunk. It is also worth noting that Able had a yield of 23 Kilotons while a MOAB has a yield of 11 tons or in other words just ~0.05% of the yield.
Seems like you'd want to use paveway bombs. They were designed to take out concrete runways and you don't have to kill the carriers, you just have to stop them from landing and launching aircraft for a mission kill.
You said that you've positioned the ships in the fleet unrealistically close together, and that you did it to make it easier... I wonder if it's counter productive though. First when doing the low altitude attacks, you're in range of many more AA guns than you might be if the ships were further apart. Second, when doing high-altitude attacks, the issue is always how fast the enemy fighters can get to 20,000 ft, and I'm curious if you could actually get a more efficient path between targets if they were further apart (which could reduce your total time to drop 1 bomb on each carrier - because you could just go direct from target to target rather than passing over and coming back - and potentially make it harder for the enemy fighters to get to your altitude).
Many Japanese carriers quickly turned into raging infernos as aviation fuel and ordnance cooked-off following a relatively small bomb strike. These ships lacked many of the damage control measures that U.S. carriers had.
Midway was a special case - they were hit in the middle of refueling and rearming for a fleet strike with the bombs intended for a second strike on Midway still on deck.
The A-10 has a service ceiling 15,000 feet higher than the A6M and climbs at twice the rate. Given that the bombs are laser guided and just one is capable of destroying a carrier, you could have stayed at 45,000 feet and dropped bombs to sink the carriers. Once the carriers are sunk, the Japanese would have lost the battle since their planes wouldn't have had anyplace to land. Additionally, if the Japanese fleet had been detected at night, the A-10 has thermal night sights and could have used the night as cover to kill the ships.
The AC-130 Spectre gunship's weapons are fired by the pilot, but there's also a full crew of people in the back of the plane, including gunners who train/aim the weapons. When they're on target, they press the "ready" trigger. The pilot has a targeting HUD (on his left facing starboard) which will indicate which guns are targeted and ready to fire. This is how they are so accurate in their air support/air attack role. This is definitely not represented in the game.
This is completely in accurate. The pilot focuses on flying the plane. Specifically during the pylon maneuver which they use when they’re striking targets. AC-130 weapons fire and targeting is done primarily at the hand of the Combat Systems Officer sitting in the back of the aircraft at a control station that feeds them data.
I will disagree with you on the A-10 conclusion: If the flight deck of one of those carriers would have been hit it'd be out of action for a few days. And they didn't have catapults, they need any runway they can get. So yes, the hog wouldn't be safe against 300 Zeros, but he could disrupt their flight operations enough to effectively stop or at least weaken a serious attack.
The Japanese Fleet would have a very difficult time shooting down a C-130J with Rolls Royce 6 Bladed Turbo Props and a FULL compliment armory-- The Phalanx Gatling Gun, 20mm Cannon, 45 and 105 Caliber and extra fuel. The C130J is fast enough to avoid the Zero or shoot it down before it became a threat. The heavy artillery on board could sink a carrier.
great video, a few pointers, don't ever EVER drop bombs in CCIP, it's an A-10 not a tomcat; Gun does a lot better shooting ships in DCS (not sure if it is a damage model problem but you can kill a ship in 2 strafing runs with the A-10 but it takes a lot of bombs to kill it with just bombs); don't drop a GBU without lazing, it tends to point the bomb down to start looking for the laze and never hits properly; don't fly in a straight line with the A-10; when you lose an engine, drop all bombs and use the gun minimally since it produces the same amount of recoil as the thrust of one of your engines. that being said, flying these A-10s this poorly and still managing to do so well tells me it is definitely possible to take out all of these targets with 4 A-10s
Cap the term u are looking for in regards to the ac130 aiming. 'Like flying a hot air balloon in a typhoon' Very happy you have a dedicated server makes things even better
Convoys had AA. AC130 is very good at dishing it out but anything decent coming the other way and it will not fly much longer. I guess it could fire from a distance but I would imagine it not being very effective.
Prewatch: I think the A10s are going to devastate the carriers. They are incredibly armored and the GAU-8 is a monster of a gun. Biggest issue I see with it is running low on ammo. The AC130? I am not as familiar with it but it should be able to drop a lot of problems. I do not see it doing as well because of armor.
Short answer is, when? If it caught them while they were still fueling and arming aircraft, but before they started launching them, it could absolutely obliterate them. All it took was a single 1000 pound bomb to sink a carrier in such a state at Midway. If it caught them after the strike had already been launched, no. There's too many of them.
With the C-130s, you might have done better to ignore the carriers and shoot down the zeros. If you flew in a circle, you might have been able to pick off the fighters that tried to climb up to get you; then gone after the dive and torpedo planes headed for Pearl.
Your targets are in two separate groups and not communicating with each other. SO you obliterate (or at least mission kill) one half and the other half goes on none the wiser. (or, you know, bring two and swing around to share Oppenhiemer's instant sunshine with everyone.)
What if we added the variable that the A-10’s had enough warning that they could launch a pre dawn sortie. An attack under cover of darkness could be a significant variable.
@@Yorickunderscore no it’s colloquially known as “mother of all bombs” but it’s officially “massive ordinance air blast” en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-43/B_MOAB
Do a bomber wave with targeting pods on them, or fighters with targeting pods, if that's actually possible. I'd love to see a rain of 1000 or 2000-pound bombs on the IJN fleet
Not to be critical, but what if you "train" for this exercise and run it a few times prior to the recording. Maybe cut down on the misses and mistakes?
At Pearl Harbor, the A6M2 (Type 0 Model 21) was the fighter used by the IJNAS. It had 940 hp for take-off and 950 hp at 13,800 ft. It could climb to 20,000 ft in 7-1/2 minutes.
If you could pick the weapons to use with the A-10 there is a Maverick variant that is anti ship. If you had 3 A-10's loaded up with those you could fire half of them at the screening destroyers from a safe distance and thin out the AA coverage. Also it might have confused them and they might have thought submarines found them. Then you could send a couple of Mavericks in per carrier to kill them. After that you could go in and strafe the remaining outer defenses and ruin their day. The other nice thing about the A-10 with Mavericks is you have a higher max ceiling than the Zero's and you can stay above them until you dive through them to strafe. Also with Mavericks since they are fire and forget, you could have dropped down on the deck after firing them and come in low and fast to strafe. You could have come in from different directions thinning the AA or come in together and tried to blow a hole through the defense.
I feel like this mission was a cluster (from the A-10 side of things). Your friends really fudged it up. To give the A-10 it's best chance to succeed, you need to have people who know how to employ it, flying them. I would suggest training these two, or getting people who already know how to use it in there-then lets see what happens.
Just did some research on whether or not one GBU could kill a Japanese carrier. The GBU 10 has either 535 or 945 lb of explosives, depending on whether it's a BLU-109 or MK 84, respectively. The Hiryu was hit by four 1000 pound MK 65 bombs, which exploded and made the carrier catch fire, leading to it sinking. The carriers also had only 1 inch of armor below the flight deck, so if a GBU could penetrate deep enough into a carrier it is possible, but not guaranteed, that it could sink a carrier in one hit. If the bomb variant was the heavier MK 84, it would have a much higher chance of killing in one shot.
Heh! That AC-130 is just like the old predecessor of it, the AC-47, an old DC-3 gunship aimed by the pilot looking to his left through a small crosshair, and aiming the fire by adjusting the orbit of the aircraft. Worked very well in Vietnam for those firebases under siege, and guys in the back lighting up the area at night with flares. But yes, unless you have air superioriity and there are no ground based Anti Air, the big gunships are not a good option.
The hell with the A-10 and AC-130, put up 4 P-3 Orion with Harpoon missiles. 6 Harpoons per P-3: 3 per IJN carrier (18 Harpoons) and take out support ships of opportunity (6 Harpoons). Stand off weapons are the best choice: P-3 has good stand-off radar, the IJN would not be able to see them or respond until it was too late, if they could respond at all. The Harpoon has a 60+ mile range. The first missiles would be hitting the carries before and sailors would say "それらは一体何ですか？ - Sorera wa ittai nanidesu ka?" ("What the Hell?") If the weapon spread isn't enough to outright sink the fleet, it would definitely damage it enough to render it mission ineffective and they would have to retire prior to attacking Pearl. Make it 6 P-3s and you can all put take out most of the ships in the IJN attack force of Operation Z. My priorities would have been: The 6 carriers, then the oil tankers - would make it difficult for the surviving ships to make it back to Japan or even to a forward base - then the other surface vessels. ETA: Make it 4 fully loaded P-8 Poseidon's and you have 44 Harpoons to target.... Not as much loiter time, but: 18 for Carriers, 9 for Oilers, and 17 for the rest of the fleet.
To be fair, the GAU-8 chewing up the flight deck makes it unusable. The A6M is not a realistic substitute for the 1941 A5M. It carried twice as many 20mm cannons as well as far mor ammo for each.
"We believe in you Cap." ROFL. Believe. Just like Ted Lasso, brah! It's fun to watch and think about whether this would actually work. While the A-10 has tons of hitting power, it seems on par with the zero for speed. Thus, you're in deep trouble if you go take it downtown to try and hit these guys. When you got down low, you weren't really able to put the GAU 8 to the fullest advantage. That is, come in hot, straight down the throat with the GAU 8 and go down the long axis of the carrier, then start the can opener and tear that mutha open. This also exposes you to a lot of AA, but better chance of success with the guns. Great stuff!
8:44 If I remember correctly the A-1 (which again if I remember correctly) was used in WWII could go 551 knots. But since this is before the year I think it was introduced your guess is true in a sense.
Attack with the A10s from ~35,000 with laser guided bombs. The Japanese would never be able to reach you must less threaten you. All of these I have watched (Admittedly I have not watched all of them) have used tactics that take away most of the advantages for the modern aircraft just to make the fight fair and interesting. Perhaps do both (One with what would have really happened and one where it's a fair and interesting fight) Same with the AC130 (Though less familiar with how that particular weapons mix would work from Max altitude) Though I am sure having a 105mm howitzer rain shells down on an unarmored flight deck would do wonders for the Japanese.
I'd love to see The U.S. Carrier Fleet with Two additional ships-- USS Iowa Class Battleship and Amphibious Assault Ship with Helicopters and F-35's! Please third times a charm! Especially when you have an Iowa Class Battleship!!👍👍
Re ac-130 aiming. Pre computer (they started with D-3/C-47's during Vietnam) the pilots put a fixed gun sight on the window. The pilot would fly a left hand pylon turnt around the target, and the guns would be firing into the circle. Where the left wing is pointed is where the gun is pointed is where the bullets will hit.
Does the BUFF (B-52) in DCS have a tail gun that works? That might be an interesting option since the zeros seem to sidle right up behind you to shoot. Cheers!
The thing about the GBU's is I think they'd have a better shot taking out the carrier if they hit somewhere other than the middle, like the elevators for example.
I noticed when u were moving the crosshair the 105 moved with it. Idk if u can change the gun or what gun ur looking from to where u can shoot the 105 while aiming with it or move the machine gun sight which in turn would move the gun
My rig cant handle this game. So question.. can you drop the MOAB in the climb? Slightly dive at the carrier then pull up to 90 and kick it out the back!
A 105 round on a ww2 era carrier would probably cause it to be disabled or even sink it, if you hit the ammunition storage spaces. A MOAB or an FAE airburst could do some damage seeing the ships are so close together
A 105mm howitzer shell is roughly equivalent to a 4 inch HE naval shell, though with less penetrative capability for shell due to the low velocity. The AC-130 would make a mess of the flight deck and stop flight operations until the splintered wooden deck had been repaired, but it would be unlikely to do much more than that. The MOAB would devastate the target ship if it hit, however it is designed to detonate above the target and like the howitzer shells would destroy the flight deck, but likely little else. Add that the ships in the fleet in this simulation are vastly too close together, andit wouldn't be the fleet killer envisioned. Usually the carriers would be separated by at least a couple of miles to give them space to manoeuvre in case of attack or for conducting air operations. This space to maneuver would likely make hitting a carrier with the MOAB incredibly difficult as while the MOAB has some guidance and maneuver fins, it is designed to hit stationary targets and would like struggle to hit a carrier that turned 180° and moved away from the aim point as the bomb fell.
You don't need to destroy a carrier, you just need to severely damage the deck and elevators so that planes can't take off. Do that and you nullify a carrier. After that it's just a weak anti-aircraft platform.
All the arguments here of "You should've... it've been easier!" and all I can say is this: 1 B-1 Lancer with a load of laser-guided bombs, and just a pair of A-10s--or even F-111 "Spark-Varks"--to do the targeting from an altitude too-high for the Zeros to reach, and done too-soon for them to effectively reach... let alone strike... their intended target.
Which GBU are you guys using? There are several. GBU-28 is known known as Bunker Buster. Made to penetrate dozens of feet of reinforced concrete, the mountainsides of Afghanistan. That would work nicely on a carrier deck. It will penetrate through at least several decks of the carrier and blow up close to the keel, breaking the ships back. Would be cool if it hit the oil supplies or ammunition supplies. Of course all the GBU's may have that capability, I just know about the bunker buster. There's also the 500 lb JDAM. Very destructive.
Interesting, the 6 GBU 10 bombs dropped by the F15 may or may not destroy the carriers but they would certainly render the flight decks inoperable. I wonder if the MOAB could be rigged for a HALO drop on the carriers.
That was the halloween ARMA mission with the clouds and the totems with the guys inside, and Cap’s dental work adding to the commentary wasn’t it? Edit: ahhh, no it wasn’t, I get it now - death from above.
Helps to remember that AC 130 pilots are not gunners. The developers need to either add a gunner patch or make a wat to set an attack pattern if only one person is allowed per plane.
Point of interest: Published top speed of the A-10 is 439 mph. Published top speed of the P-51 Mustang is 437.01 mph Published top speed of the P-47 is 433.10 mph. Published top speed of the P-38 is 443.04 mph So, while most of the old warbirds were significantly slower than the A-10, there were a couple that could come close and at least one that could have run it down.
The warthog could outmaneuver the zero. The A-10 has armor under the wings & jets nacelles. Exposing the A-10's belly to the zeroes would be using the A-10's armor to their advantage, though no guarantees. The Spectre would be overpowered by a gaggle of A6Ms. I just thought of something. Use a modified version of the Thatch Weave to defend against zeroes. Circle the specters, using a Spectre wingman as mutual defense
Sim clearly doesn’t allow for it but those Zeros wouldn’t be able to handle the jet wash from those A-10’s the turbulence would rip the airframe apart.
My question on that 90%/10%, does a carrier need to actually sink to be effectively destroyed as a carrier? Would the bomb have prevented the carrier from launching and recovering aircraft?
2nd Attempt Video: ua-cam.com/video/5tb3Olz1kd0/v-deo.html
Completely unrealistic for a realistic battle simulator....
All modern planes can fly at a greater altitude and Well over 3times faster than any world war II plane. Right off the bat it's impossible for a Japanese zero to shoot down any modern planes.
Literally one modern fighter bomber (if ammunition wasn't an issue) could destroy the entire Japanese naval fleet at world war II Pearl harbor
Now waiting on B1, B2, or B52 vs the loser imperial navy.
Good thanks how about fB 111 At low bombing
SIG HALE
This shows that impressive hardware coupled with incompetence is no formula for success
A very good way to put it!
Hence the issue the Iraqis had. One of the tank battles, they had set up their defenses to watch a ridge line.
The problem? The mis ranged the ridge line and put it out of range of their dug in tanks but in range of the M1s
Yup. They used weapons ill suited for the task. Mk. 82s would have done well if you came in steep. The Hydra Rocket pods would have smashed up the carriers pretty good or completely destroyed the DDs and Cruisers, on top of being easier to aim and use.
@@tc1817 that sort of thing actually cost Iraq a battle during desert storm.
They found a good spot and dug in, watching a ridge. But they made a critical error, they miscalculated the range and dug all their tanks in outside of their own gun range, meanwhile the ridge was within the Abrams gun range. So the Abrams could sit at the ridge and pick off the Iraqi tanks without fear of return fire.
so did Saddam Hussein lol
I like to think that the actual USAF would be much more accurate than this.
They would have
Yup, the only definitive thing I learned from this video is, if we build a time machine to go back and stop this attack from happening, we should leave Simba and Damp at home. How do you f up a tpod in a hot A-10 lmao
@@Vanguard2323 Also need to leave Cap at home too. He's no good Air to Ground in a hog.
Ya think?
Sure they would, but would they show us?
A 3 B-1B Lancer Flight with a full compliment of LRASM vs the Japanese Fleet
I think one cound do the job. I would like them to try the B-52
So the death of the fleet? I don't think the LRASM would be able to penetrate the belt of any of these ships, but if the LRASM had a pop up mode, it could wreck their super structures and leave them a burning heap in the middle of the ocean.
Someone make LRASM mod plz...
Or, make the Japanese fleet stationary and use similar munitions that do work in DCS, maybe throw in some war birds for escorts as shits and gigs
overkill, one would be over kill.
That wasn't even close to tactical. Cap going kamakazie and the t-pod broken was at best a half hearted effort. Each of you could easily target 1 carrier a piece and take out 3 carriers from 20k before they barely get any planes launched. Within minutes you have all 6 dead. Not to mention you only need 3 bombs a piece in case 1 is a dud so your speed and altitude is much better. I agree though the 130 is just unusable.
Other weapons were also feasible. Hydras and Mk. 82s would have been plenty. Decent damage yield against carriers with comparatively weaker armor and defenses than a modern ship plus the ability to carry a hefty payload of them.
6 carriers, 3 A-10C’s, 1 GBU-10 needed per carrier. You should have loaded 2 GBU-10’s per A-10 instead of overloading them with 6. You could have kept your altitude high and stuck to laser guided munitions - maintaining maneuverability with the lighter load. You have to try again! (And perhaps rewatch your older videos on the A-10 ;))
Those AC-130s need an update that allows you to aim those guns separate from using the control surfaces... That would make this exercise a bit more viable.. or least, less frustrating lol
If you could aim the guns on the AC130 properly , you could easily sit at altitude and shred those carriers.
Yeah instead of having 3 separate C-130's they could have had 1 with full crew and decimated those carriers. Using a method where you can't even aim your guns is pretty poor effort.
Something else I just thought of:
The Japanese fleet would have been running with no radar or radio emissions at all in order to remain undetected. They'd not have known the A-10s were coming unless they saw them visually, or they got hit by an LGB.
How do you say "what's that rushing noise?" in Japanese?
I mean, they still had radar so, they could see them coming from a far, just not say things directly.
@@15241 Japan didn't have any operational radar until after the attack on Pearl Harbor was launched. They didn't have ship-fitted radar until 1942.
Honestly based on the results of the Operation Crossroads Nuclear tests I think a MOAB would probably have to hit pretty close to a carrier to actually sink it. In the Able test which was an airburst the carrier USS Independence was 560 Yards (510 meters) away from Ground Zero and the carrier USS Saratoga was 2,265 yards (2,071 meters) away and neither of them sunk. It is also worth noting that Able had a yield of 23 Kilotons while a MOAB has a yield of 11 tons or in other words just ~0.05% of the yield.
The idea was to hit the carrier directly.
Seems like you'd want to use paveway bombs. They were designed to take out concrete runways and you don't have to kill the carriers, you just have to stop them from landing and launching aircraft for a mission kill.
You said that you've positioned the ships in the fleet unrealistically close together, and that you did it to make it easier... I wonder if it's counter productive though. First when doing the low altitude attacks, you're in range of many more AA guns than you might be if the ships were further apart. Second, when doing high-altitude attacks, the issue is always how fast the enemy fighters can get to 20,000 ft, and I'm curious if you could actually get a more efficient path between targets if they were further apart (which could reduce your total time to drop 1 bomb on each carrier - because you could just go direct from target to target rather than passing over and coming back - and potentially make it harder for the enemy fighters to get to your altitude).
Many Japanese carriers quickly turned into raging infernos as aviation fuel and ordnance cooked-off following a relatively small bomb strike. These ships lacked many of the damage control measures that U.S. carriers had.
Midway was a special case - they were hit in the middle of refueling and rearming for a fleet strike with the bombs intended for a second strike on Midway still on deck.
Cape may also be referring to Taiho
The A-10 has a service ceiling 15,000 feet higher than the A6M and climbs at twice the rate. Given that the bombs are laser guided and just one is capable of destroying a carrier, you could have stayed at 45,000 feet and dropped bombs to sink the carriers. Once the carriers are sunk, the Japanese would have lost the battle since their planes wouldn't have had anyplace to land.
Additionally, if the Japanese fleet had been detected at night, the A-10 has thermal night sights and could have used the night as cover to kill the ships.
The AC-130 Spectre gunship's weapons are fired by the pilot, but there's also a full crew of people in the back of the plane, including gunners who train/aim the weapons. When they're on target, they press the "ready" trigger. The pilot has a targeting HUD (on his left facing starboard) which will indicate which guns are targeted and ready to fire. This is how they are so accurate in their air support/air attack role. This is definitely not represented in the game.
This is completely in accurate. The pilot focuses on flying the plane. Specifically during the pylon maneuver which they use when they’re striking targets. AC-130 weapons fire and targeting is done primarily at the hand of the Combat Systems Officer sitting in the back of the aircraft at a control station that feeds them data.
Where on earth did you get this info from ?
Where did you get this stupid idea? LoL. Its like saying a tank driver is the one to press the fire button during tank battle. Haha.
@@SchwanRutoza and they fly at night, with night vision (so they would be much harder to target with flak)
I will disagree with you on the A-10 conclusion: If the flight deck of one of those carriers would have been hit it'd be out of action for a few days. And they didn't have catapults, they need any runway they can get. So yes, the hog wouldn't be safe against 300 Zeros, but he could disrupt their flight operations enough to effectively stop or at least weaken a serious attack.
The Japanese Fleet would have a very difficult time shooting down a C-130J with Rolls Royce 6 Bladed Turbo Props and a FULL compliment armory-- The Phalanx Gatling Gun, 20mm Cannon, 45 and 105 Caliber and extra fuel. The C130J is fast enough to avoid the Zero or shoot it down before it became a threat. The heavy artillery on board could sink a carrier.
great video, a few pointers, don't ever EVER drop bombs in CCIP, it's an A-10 not a tomcat; Gun does a lot better shooting ships in DCS (not sure if it is a damage model problem but you can kill a ship in 2 strafing runs with the A-10 but it takes a lot of bombs to kill it with just bombs); don't drop a GBU without lazing, it tends to point the bomb down to start looking for the laze and never hits properly; don't fly in a straight line with the A-10; when you lose an engine, drop all bombs and use the gun minimally since it produces the same amount of recoil as the thrust of one of your engines. that being said, flying these A-10s this poorly and still managing to do so well tells me it is definitely possible to take out all of these targets with 4 A-10s
Cap the term u are looking for in regards to the ac130 aiming. 'Like flying a hot air balloon in a typhoon'
Very happy you have a dedicated server makes things even better
Can you imagine one of these C-130 gunships as a convoy hunter? They could absolutely devastate enemy merchant vessels. Who needs U-boats?
Convoys had AA. AC130 is very good at dishing it out but anything decent coming the other way and it will not fly much longer. I guess it could fire from a distance but I would imagine it not being very effective.
Prewatch: I think the A10s are going to devastate the carriers. They are incredibly armored and the GAU-8 is a monster of a gun. Biggest issue I see with it is running low on ammo. The AC130? I am not as familiar with it but it should be able to drop a lot of problems. I do not see it doing as well because of armor.
Short answer is, when? If it caught them while they were still fueling and arming aircraft, but before they started launching them, it could absolutely obliterate them. All it took was a single 1000 pound bomb to sink a carrier in such a state at Midway. If it caught them after the strike had already been launched, no. There's too many of them.
tbf, at midway they had twice as much ordinance on deck than normal due to the whole switching thing.
21:50 The following twenty or so seconds are the greatest acts of unintentional comedy I've seen this year.
With the C-130s, you might have done better to ignore the carriers and shoot down the zeros. If you flew in a circle, you might have been able to pick off the fighters that tried to climb up to get you; then gone after the dive and torpedo planes headed for Pearl.
One plane could do it on DCS probably and with one bomb. You know what I mean !!! MiG21 with nuke.
Beat me to it!
Your targets are in two separate groups and not communicating with each other. SO you obliterate (or at least mission kill) one half and the other half goes on none the wiser. (or, you know, bring two and swing around to share Oppenhiemer's instant sunshine with everyone.)
@@Sorain1 everybody has equal right to 🌞
Next episode on Grim Reapers. Can a squadron of F-22's save the dinosaurs from extinction
ill do it
What if we added the variable that the A-10’s had enough warning that they could launch a pre dawn sortie. An attack under cover of darkness could be a significant variable.
Shouldn't the MOAB air burst? That's the "AB" part of the name.
All Bombs.
@@Yorickunderscore no it’s colloquially known as “mother of all bombs” but it’s officially “massive ordinance air blast”
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-43/B_MOAB
Although to be fair, I expect they came up with the mother of all bombs first then went hunting for words to fit that acronym!
mother of all bombs
@@mumplusonecarter6374 that’s a nickname, it actually means massive ordnance air blast.
Do a bomber wave with targeting pods on them, or fighters with targeting pods, if that's actually possible. I'd love to see a rain of 1000 or 2000-pound bombs on the IJN fleet
I mean that kinda defeats the point of having one plane stop the japanese navy doesnt it?
Why is attack not happening at night?
Not to be critical, but what if you "train" for this exercise and run it a few times prior to the recording. Maybe cut down on the misses and mistakes?
Misses and mistakes happen in real life.
22:00 "Aw, now I'm on board! Watch this!" [Crashes]
girls with time machine: im your granddaughter
bois with time machine:
lols
At Pearl Harbor, the A6M2 (Type 0 Model 21) was the fighter used by the IJNAS. It had 940 hp for take-off and 950 hp at 13,800 ft. It could climb to 20,000 ft in 7-1/2 minutes.
thx
If you could pick the weapons to use with the A-10 there is a Maverick variant that is anti ship. If you had 3 A-10's loaded up with those you could fire half of them at the screening destroyers from a safe distance and thin out the AA coverage. Also it might have confused them and they might have thought submarines found them. Then you could send a couple of Mavericks in per carrier to kill them. After that you could go in and strafe the remaining outer defenses and ruin their day. The other nice thing about the A-10 with Mavericks is you have a higher max ceiling than the Zero's and you can stay above them until you dive through them to strafe. Also with Mavericks since they are fire and forget, you could have dropped down on the deck after firing them and come in low and fast to strafe. You could have come in from different directions thinning the AA or come in together and tried to blow a hole through the defense.
I feel like this mission was a cluster (from the A-10 side of things). Your friends really fudged it up. To give the A-10 it's best chance to succeed, you need to have people who know how to employ it, flying them. I would suggest training these two, or getting people who already know how to use it in there-then lets see what happens.
A collaboration with Warthog Project would have had this done easy.
Yup send any decent Warthog pilots my way and I'll redo vid.
Just did some research on whether or not one GBU could kill a Japanese carrier. The GBU 10 has either 535 or 945 lb of explosives, depending on whether it's a BLU-109 or MK 84, respectively. The Hiryu was hit by four 1000 pound MK 65 bombs, which exploded and made the carrier catch fire, leading to it sinking. The carriers also had only 1 inch of armor below the flight deck, so if a GBU could penetrate deep enough into a carrier it is possible, but not guaranteed, that it could sink a carrier in one hit. If the bomb variant was the heavier MK 84, it would have a much higher chance of killing in one shot.
Heh! That AC-130 is just like the old predecessor of it, the AC-47, an old DC-3 gunship aimed by the pilot looking to his left through a small crosshair, and aiming the fire by adjusting the orbit of the aircraft.
Worked very well in Vietnam for those firebases under siege, and guys in the back lighting up the area at night with flares.
But yes, unless you have air superioriity and there are no ground based Anti Air, the big gunships are not a good option.
There's been a study about A10s vs naval warships they basically flew on the deck and used hellfire missiles try hellfires next time and no bombs
Even standing air patrols with the aircraft of the day could have greatly lessened the severity of the attack...
Kinda tough for 1 person per plane sim of a Spector to do the jobs of a 10 person crew in the real thing. For what it is, you folks did pretty well.
360Kn= 414MPH; The P-51-D max speed was 400-420MPH, the P-51-H could go about 440MPH
copy
the valley viewers are pleased
Those Valley viewers always think they are better than us mountain top viewers lol
What is a valley viewer?
The hell with the A-10 and AC-130, put up 4 P-3 Orion with Harpoon missiles. 6 Harpoons per P-3: 3 per IJN carrier (18 Harpoons) and take out support ships of opportunity (6 Harpoons). Stand off weapons are the best choice: P-3 has good stand-off radar, the IJN would not be able to see them or respond until it was too late, if they could respond at all. The Harpoon has a 60+ mile range. The first missiles would be hitting the carries before and sailors would say "それらは一体何ですか？ - Sorera wa ittai nanidesu ka?" ("What the Hell?") If the weapon spread isn't enough to outright sink the fleet, it would definitely damage it enough to render it mission ineffective and they would have to retire prior to attacking Pearl.
Make it 6 P-3s and you can all put take out most of the ships in the IJN attack force of Operation Z. My priorities would have been: The 6 carriers, then the oil tankers - would make it difficult for the surviving ships to make it back to Japan or even to a forward base - then the other surface vessels.
ETA: Make it 4 fully loaded P-8 Poseidon's and you have 44 Harpoons to target.... Not as much loiter time, but: 18 for Carriers, 9 for Oilers, and 17 for the rest of the fleet.
To be fair, the GAU-8 chewing up the flight deck makes it unusable.
The A6M is not a realistic substitute for the 1941 A5M. It carried twice as many 20mm cannons as well as far mor ammo for each.
Shout out to Scott for the dedicated server i cant wait to see the massive battles they use it for!!!
Purely for the sake of time-travelling irony and sarcasm, Cap decides to perform a Kamikaze attack on the Pearl harbour attack fleet
lols
"We believe in you Cap."
ROFL. Believe. Just like Ted Lasso, brah!
It's fun to watch and think about whether this would actually work. While the A-10 has tons of hitting power, it seems on par with the zero for speed. Thus, you're in deep trouble if you go take it downtown to try and hit these guys. When you got down low, you weren't really able to put the GAU 8 to the fullest advantage. That is, come in hot, straight down the throat with the GAU 8 and go down the long axis of the carrier, then start the can opener and tear that mutha open. This also exposes you to a lot of AA, but better chance of success with the guns. Great stuff!
8:44
If I remember correctly the A-1 (which again if I remember correctly) was used in WWII could go 551 knots. But since this is before the year I think it was introduced your guess is true in a sense.
"Not the best shooting I've ever seen..." Hahaha
They really need to get the AC-130 working. That would be AMAZING if it worked right.
I am soooo happy that you got a multiplayer server to test on . no more , "uh oh , it crashed"
I mean all it takes is a few solid hits from some AA to the wing and next thing you know the ac-130 goes down faster than a rock
Attack with the A10s from ~35,000 with laser guided bombs. The Japanese would never be able to reach you must less threaten you. All of these I have watched (Admittedly I have not watched all of them) have used tactics that take away most of the advantages for the modern aircraft just to make the fight fair and interesting. Perhaps do both (One with what would have really happened and one where it's a fair and interesting fight) Same with the AC130 (Though less familiar with how that particular weapons mix would work from Max altitude) Though I am sure having a 105mm howitzer rain shells down on an unarmored flight deck would do wonders for the Japanese.
Do it at night and they wouldn't have a clue why their ships were exploding
I'd love to see The U.S. Carrier Fleet with Two additional ships-- USS Iowa Class Battleship and Amphibious Assault Ship with Helicopters and F-35's! Please third times a charm! Especially when you have an Iowa Class Battleship!!👍👍
I 2nd this, make it happen mate. Please!! Lol
Or a couple Ohio class subs.
“Chairs and flaff” certainly startled me.
lol new type of c/measure
In reality the modern aircraft couldn’t be stopped..especially the A-10
i cap try the m2000 with bap100 please three planes to take out six carriers love the videos
They don't work: ua-cam.com/video/Xfsdx2eOOFw/v-deo.html
@@grimreapers Try the Belougas. Trust me
Re ac-130 aiming. Pre computer (they started with D-3/C-47's during Vietnam) the pilots put a fixed gun sight on the window. The pilot would fly a left hand pylon turnt around the target, and the guns would be firing into the circle. Where the left wing is pointed is where the gun is pointed is where the bullets will hit.
Awesome
There were a few warbirds that could go close to 400knots.
Drop Boris Johnson on one of their decks and watch the mayhem from a distance 😂
Could you drop laser bombs from higher alt. While one aircraft mark them and the rest drop them
VERY good idea. Didn't think of that/
What program, and platform are y'all using?
dcs
Does the BUFF (B-52) in DCS have a tail gun that works? That might be an interesting option since the zeros seem to sidle right up behind you to shoot. Cheers!
Not sure now, but they had either a 20 or quad 50's, radar guided stinger in the tail
The gun was removed Back in the day.
The thing about the GBU's is I think they'd have a better shot taking out the carrier if they hit somewhere other than the middle, like the elevators for example.
Im really hoping I can do these kinds of things as well on DCS with my friends. This is just so awesome. Love these vids like I said. :D
A squad of A-10s vs the Yamato. Let's see whose guns are truly better.
Well if it has no torpedoes good luck
I noticed when u were moving the crosshair the 105 moved with it. Idk if u can change the gun or what gun ur looking from to where u can shoot the 105 while aiming with it or move the machine gun sight which in turn would move the gun
Can’t wait to play with good ping now thanks Cap
An A10 battling over the ocean is a strange sight
Could the problems dropping the MOABs be due to negative deck angle?
Appreciate the effort you make to put these vids together. 🇦🇺
My rig cant handle this game. So question.. can you drop the MOAB in the climb? Slightly dive at the carrier then pull up to 90 and kick it out the back!
I think so yes.
But the A-10’s have armor and redundant systems they can stay in the air shot up longer than the zeros can
How can you launch a bomb from the cargo area if you're in a dive ? I would assume you need to be level or nose up.
16:40 is the most epic thing I've seen Simba do!
A 105 round on a ww2 era carrier would probably cause it to be disabled or even sink it, if you hit the ammunition storage spaces. A MOAB or an FAE airburst could do some damage seeing the ships are so close together
A 105mm howitzer shell is roughly equivalent to a 4 inch HE naval shell, though with less penetrative capability for shell due to the low velocity. The AC-130 would make a mess of the flight deck and stop flight operations until the splintered wooden deck had been repaired, but it would be unlikely to do much more than that.
The MOAB would devastate the target ship if it hit, however it is designed to detonate above the target and like the howitzer shells would destroy the flight deck, but likely little else. Add that the ships in the fleet in this simulation are vastly too close together, andit wouldn't be the fleet killer envisioned.
Usually the carriers would be separated by at least a couple of miles to give them space to manoeuvre in case of attack or for conducting air operations. This space to maneuver would likely make hitting a carrier with the MOAB incredibly difficult as while the MOAB has some guidance and maneuver fins, it is designed to hit stationary targets and would like struggle to hit a carrier that turned 180° and moved away from the aim point as the bomb fell.
the new AC130 has a LRASM/cruise missile capability these ships would be toast do a circle and focus on one point when you see where it's hitting
Missing a Carrier with a A 10 gun is .....impressive!!!
Don't know if you can do it or not but how would a 688, Virginia or Seawolf SSN handle the Japanese Navy that attacked Pearl Harbour
You don't need to destroy a carrier, you just need to severely damage the deck and elevators so that planes can't take off. Do that and you nullify a carrier. After that it's just a weak anti-aircraft platform.
The A10 exercise begins at 7:43.
The AC130 begins at 18:08
You’re welcome!
All the arguments here of "You should've... it've been easier!" and all I can say is this: 1 B-1 Lancer with a load of laser-guided bombs, and just a pair of A-10s--or even F-111 "Spark-Varks"--to do the targeting from an altitude too-high for the Zeros to reach, and done too-soon for them to effectively reach... let alone strike... their intended target.
We did B-1b in another vid, VERY effective.
Which GBU are you guys using? There are several.
GBU-28 is known known as Bunker Buster. Made to penetrate dozens of feet of reinforced concrete, the mountainsides of Afghanistan. That would work nicely on a carrier deck. It will penetrate through at least several decks of the carrier and blow up close to the keel, breaking the ships back. Would be cool if it hit the oil supplies or ammunition supplies. Of course all the GBU's may have that capability, I just know about the bunker buster. There's also the 500 lb JDAM. Very destructive.
Interesting, the 6 GBU 10 bombs dropped by the F15 may or may not destroy the carriers but they would certainly render the flight decks inoperable. I wonder if the MOAB could be rigged for a HALO drop on the carriers.
22:20 _You are cleared to fire on any target that does not have a flashing strobe._
Let's see how many of you get the reference.
That was the halloween ARMA mission with the clouds and the totems with the guys inside, and Cap’s dental work adding to the commentary wasn’t it?
Edit: ahhh, no it wasn’t, I get it now - death from above.
@@doemacmonkey There you go!
Can you have people on the specific gun stations in the AC-130 while someone else files?
sadly not yet.
"There's a bug where they stop shooting after you're damaged
" also: 30:45
Could you use the b29 and drop the Sun on the imperial fleet before it gets to pearl harbor
Yamamoto called. He says he appreciated the air show....
lol
Can you set theMOAB to air burst at say 150 ft?
neg
Helps to remember that AC 130 pilots are not gunners. The developers need to either add a gunner patch or make a wat to set an attack pattern if only one person is allowed per plane.
29:59 ‘Maybe the chairs and flaff will startle them.’ -Cap
Point of interest:
Published top speed of the A-10 is 439 mph.
Published top speed of the P-51 Mustang is 437.01 mph
Published top speed of the P-47 is 433.10 mph.
Published top speed of the P-38 is 443.04 mph
So, while most of the old warbirds were significantly slower than the A-10, there were a couple that could come close and at least one that could have run it down.
thx
The warthog could outmaneuver the zero. The A-10 has armor under the wings & jets nacelles. Exposing the A-10's belly to the zeroes would be using the A-10's armor to their advantage, though no guarantees. The Spectre would be overpowered by a gaggle of A6Ms.
I just thought of something. Use a modified version of the Thatch Weave to defend against zeroes. Circle the specters, using a Spectre wingman as mutual defense
Sim clearly doesn’t allow for it but those Zeros wouldn’t be able to handle the jet wash from those A-10’s the turbulence would rip the airframe apart.
22:01 - "Ah! Now I'm on board--watch this!" (SPLASH!)
Might as well said "Hold my beer...!". [:\
B52 loaded to the max with tomahawk missiles
My question on that 90%/10%, does a carrier need to actually sink to be effectively destroyed as a carrier? Would the bomb have prevented the carrier from launching and recovering aircraft?
Dropping some MOAB's on the carriers would do the job
also I believe the ac130 gunships usually attack at night, not during the daytime