# In a fight between a M1A2 tank and a naval destroyer, what does the tank have? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 6, 2017, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-a-fight-between-a-m1a2-tank-and-a-naval-destroyer-what-does-the-tank-have/788246 "2017-06-06T03:23:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2017, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-a-fight-between-a-m1a2-tank-and-a-naval-destroyer-what-does-the-tank-have/788246/161 "2017-06-14T14:50:45Z")
> [@DinoR](#): > > … > and firing every damn machinegun at the prescribed aiming point along the jet’s line of movement if it was low enough. Anything to make things a little harder for the pilot. Hence my comment about the poor risk/reward from our POV. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2017, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-a-fight-between-a-m1a2-tank-and-a-naval-destroyer-what-does-the-tank-have/788246/162 "2017-06-14T14:59:16Z")
> [@Raguleader](#): > > One recent tactic for fast-movers was precision-guided dummy munitions. Instead of being loaded with high explosives, the 500lb bomb was loaded with concrete. Dropped from a sufficient height and with enough accuracy, it is evidently more than a match for most tanks and other things not buried underground. The concrete bombs were/are our standard training round. Cheap & plentiful. OTOH, the precision guidance kits are not cheap. This is all about reduced collateral damage. Dropping a 500# into a city trying to plink tanks or APCs or whatever hiding in the alleys produces a lot of collateral damage. A concrete round not so much, even if it misses. So it’s a case of the taxpayers paying an extra ~$30K per shot to prevent a YouTube video. Whether that’s a good deal or not is unclear to me. The development of various “reduced signature” bombs, including the [GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Diameter_Bomb) is an attempt to get a better mix somewhere between the 500# HE and the 500# concrete. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2017, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-a-fight-between-a-m1a2-tank-and-a-naval-destroyer-what-does-the-tank-have/788246/163 "2017-06-14T15:02:39Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **Raguleader** : > > One recent tactic for fast-movers was precision-guided dummy munitions. Instead of being loaded with high explosives, the 500lb bomb was loaded with concrete. Dropped from a sufficient height and with enough accuracy, it is evidently more than a match for most tanks and other things not buried underground. I’m sure this isn’t a high priority in the brass’s decision-making process, but another advantage of such a weapon is that you never need to worry about unexploded ordnance. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2017, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-a-fight-between-a-m1a2-tank-and-a-naval-destroyer-what-does-the-tank-have/788246/164 "2017-06-14T18:06:02Z")
It it just me, or does anyone else think it’s funny that the guys who drove tanks figure the tank shreds the ship, while the ex-navy guys figure they destroy the tank without breaking a sweat, and the air force dudes are like, “Fools, I’ll destroy you all”? ---
**Author:** ![gnoitall](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bb73d2/32.png) [@gnoitall](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gnoitall)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2017, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-a-fight-between-a-m1a2-tank-and-a-naval-destroyer-what-does-the-tank-have/788246/165 "2017-06-14T20:17:24Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > It it just me, or does anyone else think it’s funny that the guys who drove tanks figure the tank shreds the ship, while the ex-navy guys figure they destroy the tank without breaking a sweat, and the air force dudes are like, “Fools, I’ll destroy you all”? You have just encapsulated the entire 20[sup]th[/sup] Century history of American military doctrine in once sentence. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2017, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-a-fight-between-a-m1a2-tank-and-a-naval-destroyer-what-does-the-tank-have/788246/166 "2017-06-14T21:53:44Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > It it just me, or does anyone else think it’s funny that the guys who drove tanks figure the tank shreds the ship, while the ex-navy guys figure they destroy the tank without breaking a sweat, and the air force dudes are like, “Fools, I’ll destroy you all”? None of the very pro-ship posts were well informed IMO. Some of the pro-tank posts by tankers might have been a bit one sided, but they are still basically right. The pro-ship side fails to sufficiently recognize IMO three things: -how much more unrealistic it is to assume the tank is easy to see with no terrain or building cover, whereas ships are on the open water with no cover except in really fluky cases. -how much bigger and more vulnerable the DDG is as a target, whereas the absolute accuracy of the two sides’ main guns, within tank gun range, is broadly similar. -how little the DDG’s weapons are optimized to destroy tanks, whereas the tank’s ammo while not ideal for attacking an unarmored warship could still wreak havoc. Plus a lot of posts have pushed back, reasonably IMO, on the idea of one tank: tanks rarely operate alone just like they don’t sit completely in the open if there’s any shallow fold in the ground, building, other vehicles etc around to partly conceal them. You can always tilt any scenario till it favors one side, but modern unarmored ships are at a disadvantage within range of tanks. The main potential offsetting factor is the ship’s H-60 helo, under favorable assumptions (fitted with Hellfire designator/launcher kit, carrying anti-armor capable versions of the missile ships don’t always carry). But if the helo spots hostile tanks soon enough, the rational reaction of the DDG is to get out of range, go astern on the narrow waterway if necessary. ---
**Author:** ![swampspruce](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/swampspruce/32/261_2.png) [@swampspruce](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/swampspruce)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2017, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-a-fight-between-a-m1a2-tank-and-a-naval-destroyer-what-does-the-tank-have/788246/167 "2017-06-14T22:20:34Z")
I think a lot of this discussion would be clarified, slightly, if we actually limit the destroyer to a particular model. For example, if we posit a Zumwalt with a railgun, which is seriously being considered, I suspect it would punch a pretty neat hole even in something as well armored as an Abrams. Other notes: GBU-24s were dropped on Libyan tanks and open them up just fine. No sane pilot wants to willingly fly into an IADS if it’s even remotely well crewed. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2017, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-a-fight-between-a-m1a2-tank-and-a-naval-destroyer-what-does-the-tank-have/788246/168 "2017-06-14T22:28:28Z")
Right, which is why in any real world transit of the Suez Canal or the Strait of Mallacca you won’t see a lone destroyer sailing through hoping not to meet any opposition. It’s been a truism that shore guns beat naval guns, and a tank is a mobile armored shore gun, so the tankers probably have an edge in a “lone destroyer scooting along the coast hoping not to get shot at” hypothetical scenario. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2017, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-a-fight-between-a-m1a2-tank-and-a-naval-destroyer-what-does-the-tank-have/788246/169 "2017-06-15T01:24:32Z")
> [@Corry\_El](#): > > None of the very pro-ship posts were well informed IMO. Some of the pro-tank posts by tankers might have been a bit one sided, but they are still basically right. > > The pro-ship side fails to sufficiently recognize IMO three things: > -how much more unrealistic it is to assume the tank is easy to see with no terrain or building cover, whereas ships are on the open water with no cover except in really fluky cases. > -how much bigger and more vulnerable the DDG is as a target, whereas the absolute accuracy of the two sides’ main guns, within tank gun range, is broadly similar. > -how little the DDG’s weapons are optimized to destroy tanks, whereas the tank’s ammo while not ideal for attacking an unarmored warship could still wreak havoc. > > Plus a lot of posts have pushed back, reasonably IMO, on the idea of one tank: tanks rarely operate alone just like they don’t sit completely in the open if there’s any shallow fold in the ground, building, other vehicles etc around to partly conceal them. You can always tilt any scenario till it favors one side, but modern unarmored ships are at a disadvantage within range of tanks. > > The main potential offsetting factor is the ship’s H-60 helo, under favorable assumptions (fitted with Hellfire designator/launcher kit, carrying anti-armor capable versions of the missile ships don’t always carry). But if the helo spots hostile tanks soon enough, the rational reaction of the DDG is to get out of range, go astern on the narrow waterway if necessary. This really encapsulates it in a nutshell. Is the DDG a target of opportunity for the tank platoon/company? Or is it a dedicated mission? Same goes for the DDG: is it making a routine transit that just happens to bring it in clos(er) to shore, or is it on a dedicated mission that _must_ bring it close(er) to shore? In the case of “dedicated missions,” there’s going to be a whole lot more going on than tank(s) vs. DDG; both (tanks and DDG) would merely be “the tip of the spear.” Fast movers and attack helos, recon drones and such, artillery assets (tube and rocket) for and from both sides…it would be really messy. Drop all variables into one of the Pentagon’s “Tactical Scenario Model” computers, set to frappe, and call me with the results. If the DDG is a “target of opportunity” for a tank platoon/company “hanging out” for some reason close to a watery body, then there’s been a major intel snafu on the Navy’s part. Maybe the Navy skipper’s smart enough to have his helo scouting for him, and it spots the tanks, reports back and the DDG scoots away to safety. Maybe the helo misses the tanks (them being all tactical and stuff), and the DDG sails blithely into harm’s way. Maybe the tanks spot the DDG and start up their engines to kick off the engagement (maybe they need to move closer; maybe they want a more advantageous position; maybe they want to be ready to displace tactically after starting the engagement), and gets spotted by the DDG’s own onboard sensors, allowing the DDG to sail away/maintain a safe distance before the tanks can engage. If, maybe, what if…all I know is that, in _my_ experience, our DivArty Support’s been rescinded due to the Divisional Volleyball League Finals, our AH air support got lost on the way, and then diverted to the Volleyball Finals, and our fast-mover air support is already bored with this mission, dumped their ordnance on a “target of opportunity” enroute to the battlespace, and is already back at the Air Farce O-Club, trying to get in a quick 9-hole game before supper. In which case, we’re going to sit quietly in our fighting positions, watch and wave as the DDG goes by, and call it in in a few hours as part of a routine SitRep. _That’s_ the Army way. ---
**Author:** ![snfaulkner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snfaulkner/32/433_2.png) [@snfaulkner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snfaulkner)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2017, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-a-fight-between-a-m1a2-tank-and-a-naval-destroyer-what-does-the-tank-have/788246/170 "2017-06-15T01:29:07Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > This really encapsulates it in a nutshell. Is the DDG a target of opportunity for the tank platoon/company? Or is it a dedicated mission? Same goes for the DDG: is it making a routine transit that just happens to bring it in clos(er) to shore, or is it on a dedicated mission that _must_ bring it close(er) to shore? > In the case of “dedicated missions,” there’s going to be a whole lot more going on than tank(s) vs. DDG; both (tanks and DDG) would merely be “the tip of the spear.” > > Fast movers and attack helos, recon drones and such, artillery assets (tube and rocket) for and from both sides…it would be really messy. Drop all variables into one of the Pentagon’s “Tactical Scenario Model” computers, set to frappe, and call me with the results. > If the DDG is a “target of opportunity” for a tank platoon/company “hanging out” for some reason close to a watery body, then there’s been a major intel snafu on the Navy’s part. Maybe the Navy skipper’s smart enough to have his helo scouting for him, and it spots the tanks, reports back and the DDG scoots away to safety. Maybe the helo misses the tanks (them being all tactical and stuff), and the DDG sails blithely into harm’s way. > > Maybe the tanks spot the DDG and start up their engines to kick off the engagement (maybe they need to move closer; maybe they want a more advantageous position; maybe they want to be ready to displace tactically after starting the engagement), and gets spotted by the DDG’s own onboard sensors, allowing the DDG to sail away/maintain a safe distance before the tanks can engage. > > If, maybe, what if…all I know is that, in _my_ experience, our DivArty Support’s been rescinded due to the Divisional Volleyball League Finals, our AH air support got lost on the way, and then diverted to the Volleyball Finals, and our fast-mover air support is already bored with this mission, dumped their ordnance on a “target of opportunity” enroute to the battlespace, and is already back at the Air Farce O-Club, trying to get in a quick 9-hole game before supper. > > In which case, we’re going to sit quietly in our fighting positions, watch and wave as the DDG goes by, and call it in in a few hours as part of a routine SitRep. > > _That’s_ the Army way. Slight threadjack, who would win that vollyball final? DivArty or AH air support? ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2017, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-a-fight-between-a-m1a2-tank-and-a-naval-destroyer-what-does-the-tank-have/788246/171 "2017-06-15T01:45:06Z")
> [@snfaulkner](#): > > Slight threadjack, who would win that vollyball final? DivArty or AH air support? Neither; Signal Battalion _always_ wins. ---
**Author:** ![DinoR](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dinor/32/2821_2.png) [@DinoR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DinoR)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2017, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-a-fight-between-a-m1a2-tank-and-a-naval-destroyer-what-does-the-tank-have/788246/172 "2017-06-15T01:45:58Z")
> [@snfaulkner](#): > > DivArty or AH air support? Attack Helicopter. Sure they are rotary not fixed wing, but they have lots of pilots. Have you not seen Top Gun? 😛 ---
**Author:** ![ssgenius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5ac83/32.png) [@ssgenius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ssgenius)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2017, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-a-fight-between-a-m1a2-tank-and-a-naval-destroyer-what-does-the-tank-have/788246/173 "2017-06-15T01:49:44Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > In my era the [AGM-65 Maverick - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-65_Maverick) was the first choice. Very high single shot P[sub]K[/sub]. > > Plinking w 2000# or 500# lb bombs was next. Excellent if the targets are slowed by terrain or stopped by traffic. The results were as good as your aim; if you get within a few meters with a 500 or a more than a few meters with a 2000 it’s usually game over for Mr. Tank, or at least his tread(s). This does not work so good if they’re scooting madly in all directions like cockroaches at **ExTank** ’s 45mph. Kentucky windage only gets you so close against erratically moving targets. > > Stafing with 20mm API was not real effective against the latest series of MBTs. e.g. it’d tear a T-55/-62/-64 to hell and back, but not do too much to the hull/turret of a T-72. Mobility and mission kills were still a major factor on -72s though. It’d make swiss cheese out of a BMP, ZSU, TEL or the like. > > And if all else failed and things were really not going so good that day in the Fulda Gap, we’d unlimber the [B61](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61_nuclear_bomb). Gets 'em every time. And you can pretty much count on getting more than one of the pesky things with each shot. > Bonus commentary: > > In a real war with a first rate enemy with real air defenses, strafing armor with an F-16, F-18, or F-35 was and still is dirt stupid; you’re trading risks pretty evenly and the aircraft is a much more rare, valuable, and irreplaceable asset than is the tank or APC or … > > But against the JV teams (at best) we’ve dealt with recently it remains a fully viable tactic. > > Nowadays they’d probably add JDAM or one of the many LGBs to the mix. That wasn’t an option for us in my primitive era. Our mantra was “A smart airplane w dumb bombs beats a dumb airplane w smart bombs”. “Dumb” airplanes being F-4s, A-6s, F-111s. > > Nowadays the standard is very smart airplanes with very smart bombs. Reading about this stuff now some days I feel pretty ancient. I trust that you were joking about using a nuclear bomb (B61) against tanks ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2017, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-a-fight-between-a-m1a2-tank-and-a-naval-destroyer-what-does-the-tank-have/788246/174 "2017-06-15T02:07:47Z")
Nope. Not kidding even a little bit. At least not within the scenario of WWIII USSR/Warsaw Pact vs. US/NATO across western Europe. Today? Nobody who knows is gonna say. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2017, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-a-fight-between-a-m1a2-tank-and-a-naval-destroyer-what-does-the-tank-have/788246/175 "2017-06-15T02:51:11Z")
> [@ssgenius](#): > > I trust that you were joking about using a nuclear bomb (B61) against tanks In fairness, you don’t use a nuke against a tank; you use a nuke against an Division+ of AFVs; tanks, personnel carriers, command tracks, wheeled and tracked arty and logistical support, The Bomb likes 'em all, and the more the merrier. ---
**Author:** ![Fubaya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@Fubaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fubaya)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2017, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-a-fight-between-a-m1a2-tank-and-a-naval-destroyer-what-does-the-tank-have/788246/176 "2017-06-15T05:39:40Z")
> [@Corry\_El](#): > > The pro-ship side fails to sufficiently recognize IMO three things: > -how much more unrealistic it is to assume the tank is easy to see with no terrain or building cover, whereas ships are on the open water with no cover except in really fluky cases. > -how much bigger and more vulnerable the DDG is as a target, whereas the absolute accuracy of the two sides’ main guns, within tank gun range, is broadly similar. > -how little the DDG’s weapons are optimized to destroy tanks, whereas the tank’s ammo while not ideal for attacking an unarmored warship could still wreak havoc. Likewise, there are things the pro-tank side fails to recognize. - An Arleigh Burke class destroyer is 500 feet long - It takes seconds for someone in the armored CIC to fire a Tomahawk. They can fire multiple missiles at once in a pinch. All they need are GPS coordinates which they can get from radar. If the tank is hidden in ground clutter, they can plot it’s location visually once the tank fires it’s first round. A tank can put holes in it, but how many holes does it take to sink a 500ft ship and can it be done faster than the flight time of a Tomahawk? ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2017, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-a-fight-between-a-m1a2-tank-and-a-naval-destroyer-what-does-the-tank-have/788246/177 "2017-06-15T05:42:10Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > Nope. Not kidding even a little bit. At least not within the scenario of WWIII USSR/Warsaw Pact vs. US/NATO across western Europe. > > Today? Nobody who knows is gonna say. Pretty sure the plans call to hit Russian Armour forces the moment they move into the Balts. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2017, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-a-fight-between-a-m1a2-tank-and-a-naval-destroyer-what-does-the-tank-have/788246/178 "2017-06-15T16:43:13Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **Corry El** : > > The pro-ship side fails to sufficiently recognize IMO three things: > -how much more unrealistic it is to assume the tank is easy to see with no terrain or building cover, whereas ships are on the open water with no cover except in really fluky cases. If the ship is in open water far from cover, then it is completely, 100% impervious to the tank. All of the pro-tank arguments have started from the premise that the ship is _not_ in that situation, because if it is, there’s nothing at all that can be said. The destroyer has the greater maximum range, and the tank cannot close range, and that’s the end of the discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Raguleader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Raguleader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raguleader)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2017, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-a-fight-between-a-m1a2-tank-and-a-naval-destroyer-what-does-the-tank-have/788246/179 "2017-06-16T04:19:15Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > Neither; Signal Battalion _always_ wins. Of course they do. After all, the Signal Corps is the great-great-grandfather of the Air Force. 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-a-fight-between-a-m1a2-tank-and-a-naval-destroyer-what-does-the-tank-have/788246/180 "2017-06-19T04:19:52Z")
It’s a slow Sunday night of laundry, so I’ll kick this back into gear: > [@Fubaya](#): > > Likewise, there are things the pro-tank side fails to recognize. > > - An Arleigh Burke class destroyer is 500 feet long > - It takes seconds for someone in the armored CIC to fire a Tomahawk. They can fire multiple missiles at once in a pinch. All they need are GPS coordinates which they can get from radar. If the tank is hidden in ground clutter, they can plot it’s location visually once the tank fires it’s first round. > > A tank can put holes in it, but how many holes does it take to sink a 500ft ship and can it be done faster than the flight time of a Tomahawk? As others in the know have already pointed out: yes, Tomahwak TLAMs (-C, -D, or Block IV) are potent weapons, yet they are NOT “point-and-click” instant kill anti-armor weapons. They are sub-optimal for point targets like individual tanks, much more useful against static targets like buildings and such, perhaps masses of _parked_ armor “in-the-open,” so to speak. An Arleigh Burke-class DDG is a very “soft” target;" its defenses optimized against other missile- and torpedo-equipped naval vessels and aircraft, and predicated on a “Don’t-Get-Hit-In-The-First-Place” doctrine. An M1A2 tank section (2 tanks), platoon (4 tanks) or company (14 tanks), with 18 ready rounds _each_ of mixed M830A1 HEAT and M829/M829A1 APFSDS-DU rounds, at a rate-of-fire of 1 round _each_ every five seconds (the United States Army _standard_ for Tank Gunnery!) would be devastating against a soft target like a DDG. Yes, the DDG can shoot back, and it _might_ be a “Bad Day” for a tank or two, and then again, it might _not_. The M1-series (indeed, most modern MBTs contemporaneous with, or even _more_ advanced than, the M1 family) are battle-hardened and incredibly tough, as has been _proven_ in rigorous testing and real-life combat experience; they can take damage that would literally destroy buildings and lesser vehicles, and _still_ keep effectively fighting, even if in a degraded (less-than-undamaged/optimal) mode. [A “word” on the M830A1 HEAT round:](https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m830a1.htm) > [@](#): > > The M830A1 HEAT (High Explosive Anti-Tank) round, recently fielded for the M1A1 and M1A2 Main Battle Tank, is a major advancement over its predecessor, the M830, which has been in the US inventory since the early '80s. HEAT rounds have multi-purpose warheads which are used to defeat armored vehicles, helicopters and soft targets such as bunkers. The M830A1 adds higher velocity launch, increased armor penetration capability and selectable fuzing which allows for the engagement of a variety of targets. The M830A1 is unique in that it features a three-piece discarding aluminum sabot, a feature normally associated with kinetic energy projectiles. The sabot allows a lighter flight projectile which can be flown to greater ranges than could the M830. The M830A1 also mounts a proximity switch on the flight projectile nose. Manually set upon gun loading, this allows the M1A1/M1A2 tank to self-defend against attacking helicopters with the 120mm main gun, a capability never before possessed by a Main Battle Tank. The multi-purpose cartridge is also extremely effective against buildings, bunkers, and light armored vehicles. The M830A1 was fielded in 1994 and is currently still in production. [Cool pic of an M830A1 round in action.](https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m830_h3.jpg) OTOH, real-life experience has shown how “soft” modern warships can be once hit; just look at the U.S.S. Stark, U.S.S. Cole, and the more recent U.S.S. Fitzgerald; none were sunk, yet all were Not Mission Capable after receiving damage. As I (and others) tried to illustrate in above posts, modern combat is a team sport; without dedicated support, I doubt that an Armor unit would even _try_ to engage a modern warship, should it (somehow!) find one in range; in my actual, real-life _combat_ experience, _we_ would most likely call it in, and let the Puzzle Palace (higher command) decide what _optimal_ assets should be allocated to engage the warship. Like, maybe, our own Naval and/or Air Force assets. :rolleyes: Should “Higher,” for their own inscrutable/indecipherable reason(s) decide that _we_ are the “optimal assets,” and orders us to engage, I can guaran-goddamned-tee you that the DDG wouldn’t see us coming, and wouldn’t know what hit it until and as such time as we opened the _case_ of whup-ass. I _know_ a tank platoon, even a tank _company_, can effectively hide (terrain dependent, natch) from even thermal- and radar-equipped searchers. _We’ve done it._ Time-and-time-again, I’ve _directly participated_ in such “hide-and-seek” “war games”/training missions against United States Army Air and U.S. Air Force assets assigned to “play” with us. These guys are no slouches; they _know_ their trade just as well as our Ground Force commanders know theirs, and they (Army or Air Force) _never_ made it easy for us. Sometimes, we “beat” them; out training, equipment, and efforts, combined with favorable terrain, let us “win;” sometimes, it did _not_, and we “died.” If I had to buy a drink for every Attack Helo and/or Air Force Driver who “killed” me, I’d need a winning Lottery Ticket to cover the bar tab. If the Air Force Drivers had to buy drinks for everyone in every Armor unit that successfully evaded them, they’d need the same winning Lottery Ticket(s). I’ve seen Army Scout/Infantry units and Attack Helicopter reconnaissance and observation helos go right by tank companies that were effectively “hiding” (camouflaged/concealed) a mere hundred meters away; had one memorable occasion when an [OH-58](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_OH-58_Kiowa) hovered right above us, searching all the points of the compass for us except the one he _could’t_ see: straight down! To summarize (and let me stress this yet again: in my direct experience): a modern Armor unit, properly trained and equipped, with even moderately favorable terrain, can (and figuratively _has_) disappeared from the face of the Earth. We were Invisible, until and as such _we_ decided to “make our presence known;” and when we did, it was a friggin’ massacre. _For the “other guys.”_ Otherwise. **LSLGuy** nailed it: “tanks in the open” are in, at best, a “decidedly non-optimal tactical environment” against “enemy air;” IADS notwithstanding, our best hope is in our IADS and friendly “fast movers” keeping _them_ “distracted” enough to allow _some_ of us to live, perhaps enough of us to live that we’re still “mission capable” afterwards, numbers-wise. If _not_, then “our” (the formation of “tanks in the open”) only hope is that there’s more of us than them, and that they run out of munitions before we run out of tanks for them to kill. Beyond that, it’s up to fate/God/The Devil/Bob. Things to bear in mind: while I was in tanks, I was never in Armor; I was _Cavalry_, more specifically, _Armored Cavalry_\*, a distinction that seems to have been lost in this age of Asymmetric Warfare, and its emphasis on lighter, more mobile (and less logistically intensive) assets. A properly trained, equipped, and commanded modern Armored Cavalry unit (Squadron; Regiment) is a sneaky, fast-moving, hard-hitting, logistically self-sustaining formation. It’s Mjollnir, in the hand of Thor, if Thor were every bit as sneaky/devious as Loki. \*The 1st Cavalry Division, in my time with them at Ft. Hood, had consistently trained as a standard Armored Division for their standing [REFORGER](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exercise_Reforger) mission; when we were tapped to head to Saudi Arabia in August of 1990, we quickly retrained/reoriented to be more like a heavy (with our 1st and 2nd Brigades, more like _two_) Armored Cavalry Regiment(s). I recall one well-meaning, yet not-particularly-bright 2nd Lieutenant wonder why we were training on _Cavalry_ missions. 😕 Us NCOs just looked at him with respectfully blank looks (that otherwise spoke volumes :dubious:); our CO, an 0-3 Captain, observed dryly, “Well, Lieutenant, we _are_ 1st Battalion, 5th _Cavalry_ Regiment, 1st _Cavalry_ Division, and we’re being deployed to cover for and _screen_ the XVIII Airborne Corps. D’ya think that that _might_ have _something_ to do with our assigned training scenarios?” Lieutenant: :smack::o Captain/NCOs: :rolleyes: Of course, XVIII Airborne Corps, consisting of testosterone-laden, overconfident Wind Dummies who are _almost_ as good as they _think_ they are, decided that they didn’t need no stinkin’ “Cavalry Division” to help _them!_ So they parked us out-of-the way, in the middle-of-the desert, at the corner-of-godforsaken-“no”-and-“where,” and left us there to rot for the better part of three months. It wasn’t until VII Corps started arriving out of Germany that General Schwarzkopf decided that the 1st Cav could be better utilized helping out VII Corps, and the overall Theater Battle Plan, than sitting in the middle of the desert swatting flies and contemplating our navels. :smack::mad: > [@Chronos](#): > > If the ship is in open water far from cover, then it is completely, 100% impervious to the tank. All of the pro-tank arguments have started from the premise that the ship is _not_ in that situation, because if it is, there’s nothing at all that can be said. The destroyer has the greater maximum range, and the tank cannot close range, and that’s the end of the discussion. Well…the OP posits (implicitly, at least) a scenario where both sides have at least a chance of inflicting damage/harm on the other. As such, our notional DDG will be anywhere from point-blank-meters to 4,000 meters from the tanks, possibly as far away as 8,000 meters (less-than-optimal for the tanks, but still theoretically possible). Otherwise, you are absolutely, 100% correct. If we count _only_ “organic assets\*,” and not 2nd Tier Support Assets (like, Artillery and/or Aviation Support) for the tank unit, the DDG’s “organic” assets offer some very potent, possibly decisive advantages over its armored adversaries. \*I would like to point out at this time that the AN/TWQ-1 Avenger Air Defense System, while not assigned as an _integral_ part of a U.S. Armor unit, could still be directly assigned as an “additional asset” _to_ an Armor unit. If the DDG is aware, or somehow made aware, of the presence of the tank(s) _before entering effective combat range of that tank/those tanks_, then _all_ the advantages go to the DDG. Its TLAMs _are_ potent weapons; while not really optimized against “hard” targets like tanks operating tactically, they nonetheless possess rather nasty warheads that can make even tactically operating tanks miserable. Or dead. The DDG’s helos, MH-60 Seahawks, aren’t typically outfitted with Anti-Tank armaments like AGM-114 Hellfires or AGM-65 Mavericks. But it isn’t beyond the realm of possibility that, mission dependent, they very easily _could_ be. In fact, the Hellfire is specifically listed as being (capable of, at least) mounted on Seahawks. While not an overall “game-changer,” it is a factor our putative “armor unit” would have to contend with and worry _seriously_ about. The “advantage” to the “armor unit” is that Arleigh Burkes carry at most only two MH-60s; and while I _think_ (someone feel free to correct me if I’m wrong) that those two MH-60s might carry as many as 8 Hellfires _each_, they can only probably fire one at a time, for a maximum of two “in-the-air/heading-for-a-target” at any time. If they can “ripple-fire/sequential-fire” multiple missiles, and the helo “gunners” can locate additional targets and shift aim on the laser designator quickly enough…it might be a very bad day to be a tanker playing “shore battery” against a Naval vessel. I don’t know if the Hellfire system and it’s fire control components have this capability. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-a-fight-between-a-m1a2-tank-and-a-naval-destroyer-what-does-the-tank-have/788246.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-a-fight-between-a-m1a2-tank-and-a-naval-destroyer-what-does-the-tank-have/788246.md?page=10)