So I was reading the bbq troll thread and it was hilarious. I haven’t laughed so hard in ages. Anyway, apparently there was a post that was about a tank fightinga aircraft carrier but the OP was banned and the post deleted. So now I am curious: assuming the tank is in range of each other, could it actually destroy the destroyer? Is that even possible?
Depends on terrain. Does the tank have hills, etc. to hide behind? The destroyer is on flat ocean.
The destroyer is also a much bigger target.
The destroyer wins after suplexing the Abrams off the top rope.
I have a feeling that the tanks shells would bounce off most naval vessels.
Tanks are armoured and shaped precisely to resist damage from shells. Consequently, tank weaponry is designed precisely to penetrate such armour.
Assuming that the MiA2 was within range, its main gun could penetrate most areas of a destroyer easily.
Are they fighting on land or sea?
To make it fair, they are fighting in Low Earth orbit.
Didn’t we just have that thread about 1800s naval cannon vs. a modern US destroyer, and folks pointed out that modern warships have thin armor, only 1-2 inches thick?
A modern Abrams tank, with sabots or whatever rounds, should easily punch through. The concern for the tank isn’t that it can’t pierce the ship; the concern is that even if all the tank’s shells pierce the ship, it might still not be enough to sink the vessel. A modern Arleigh Burke might be able to take 30 hits of this sort and keep on chugging, I think.
Read this informative post by Tranquilis and his other posts in that thread. You might be surprised.
The tank wins by firing a single shot from it’s .50 cal gun in the general direction of the destroyer and declaring victory when the ship eventually steams away.
In which case my money is on the tank. Aren’t some of them pressurised to resist gas attack? And you could used the counter-rotation of the tracks to revolve the tank in clever ways to aim. The destroyer is toast.
Our destroyers all carry missiles capable on annihilating and tank with a single hit and they are quite good at hitting things. The destroyer can probably lock on and fire faster than the Abrams can spin their turret. There is an amazing amount of technology put into the guidance systems of these ships. They are designed to toss missiles at multiple targets before anyone even realizes the destroy is within range.
The Abrams can lock on and fire pretty fast too but the chance of laying a fatal shot isn’t very good. It can defiantly penetrate the ships armor but there are only a few places that shots would have any chance of sinking the ship. I doubt the Abrams crew or computers are knowledgeable enough to be making that decision in the split second they have to make it.
There’s not a single missile on a USN destroyer capable of anti-tank.
Harpoon? No. SeaRAM? No. ESSM? No. SM-2MR, SM-3? No.
Why not? The crewmen could just point a laser at the point and fire the missile at the spot. At the very least it will annihilate the treads, movement gear and sensors and maybe the crew.
I doubt a single .50 caliber bullet will do much damage, even it just barely penetrates it wouldn’t have much left in it once it hit something else.
I read it. I’m making this thread based off some “Archinist” guy that was banned for making a similar thread that was deleted, but apparently according to the BBQ thread it was absolute nonsense. Luckily, this thread is great. 
Off-topic, I wonder how a matchup involving the 1898 HG WELLS Thunder Child VS a M1A2 Abrams tank would go, if the Tripods were replaced with M1A2’s. Hmmm…
Anyway, the environment:
The tank is on a moderate uphill slope in a heavily forested area, and is covered in vines, shrubs, bushes and trees. However, the army sprayed a chemical onto the jungle which made the trees and shrubs extremely weak and brittle, allowing the tank to move around the jungle with ease while staying under cover.
At the bottom of the hill is a river bank. The river goes in two directions, one inland and the other out to the ocean, and a small pond has formed near the bank. In the middle of the pond lies a massive coral reef which surrounds the destroyer, providing excellent protection at the cost of some maneuverability.
Tomahawk. Arleigh Burke’s carry 56, Don’t know the count on a Zumwalt but it’s likely more.
1000 pound bomb that can hit any target with pinpoint accuracy, I’d say that’s pretty anti tank.
Because none of those missile systems are laser guided.
The Tomahawk is pinpoint accurate against stationary pre-programmed targets. It has no inbuilt active terminal guidance capability. I have no idea if they could even create a target profile onboard ship, and how long that would take? Even assuming they can, which IMO is a massive if, good luck hitting a mobile target like a tank.
Does it need to be accurate? It’s a slow tank, and they could just fire off 10 or so at the same time, thus having a very high chance of hitting the tank. Plus they still have the main turret on the deck which could probably one-shot the tank, and the broadside autocannons, and maybe even a helicopter which they could either bomb, target-mark or kamikaze the tank with.
The first thread to catch my attention. As I understand it, tank guns are optimized for accuracy within a mile of the target. This includes target identification, designation, munitions option, maintaining alignment even when moving over rough ground. No doubt they can elevate their guns and use them like artillery but that’s not what they’re optimized to do.
So the question has to be, what happens when a destroyer somehow comes within a mile of a tank? The same thing that happens when it comes within range of a fortified shore defense gun --it gets blown out of the water.
But a destroyer has weapons more powerful than a 5-inch gun, and can far out-range a tank gun. The only question is whether or not it can pinpoint that tank and hit it outside of the tank’s gun range.
Does a ship have anything that can spot a tank hiding behind a hill? Because if I were in the tank, I’d employ guerrilla tactics: pop up from behind the ridge line, shoot, pull back and then pop up somewhere else. Assuming I’m in range, of course.
In a ‘semi’ serious response to the main question, the two key issues are
- The Abrams carries 42 main gun rounds, which I would expect to have close to a 100% accuracy with, and they will have no difficulty penetrating the destroyers armour. Can those 42 rounds inflict enough damage to destroy or otherwise defeat the destroyer? My gut feel is no, without a lucky shot to a vital system.
- How accurate is the destroyers 5-inch gun against a small mobile target like a tank? It is designed to protect against ‘small’* fast moving boats so maybe it is accurate enough. I’m not sure on its ability to get a penetration kill on a tank, (At a range where the tank can engage I’m presuming hits would be direct fire rather than plunging fire into the top armour) but could definitely get a mobility kill I would think.
- I say small, but I’m presuming in a naval context, small refers to say a corvette or fast attack craft which are still much bigger than an MBT.