I think what it all boils down to is that whichever combatant starts the fight is going to have a significant advantage. But this is still not symmetric: If the tank starts the fight, the destroyer is still going to have at least the opportunity to strike back, and if nothing else can always hope for a “golden BB” (how much luck this would take is a matter for discussion, and we could probably use some input from someone who has as much experience with destroyers as ExTank has with tanks). But if it’s the destroyer that’s starting the fight, there’s no reason it wouldn’t do so from outside of the tank’s range, in which case even a golden BB can’t hit it.
Beautiful post there ExTank. That’s why we all stay here; to read well-written pieces by journeymen thoughtfully sharing their expertise.
@Chronos: Agreed. The side with the initiative always has a large advantage. But that’s doubly or triply so in asymmetrical combat. And this silly scenario is a silly-huge example of asymmetric.
I get how tanks would evade radar; Minimize movement to prevent processing gains from using GMTI and Doppler filtering and maybe some mm wave RAM netting. I’m impressed that netting would be effective enough to break up the IR silhouette and sufficiently disperse the IR energy of a tank, however. Is it dependent on the tank not having used its engines recently?
There are two parts to the Tomahawk proposal. Previously it was suggested the missiles could go after tanks even if they moved, but a moving target capability is a future feature of Tomahawk and it’s not clear it would work against a target like a tank (might, but imaging IR seeker and moving target software is basically intended to restore and improve upon the long range antiship capability lost when single purpose active radar guided Tomahawks, which used a version of Harpoon’s seeker, were retired years ago).
Now the idea is to hit tanks just using GPS coordinates. But firstly they have to cooperate by standing still. Then on top no, the ship’s radars would not detect tanks in clutter/cover. And let’s take the quasi realistic case suggested along the Suez Canal. Tanks back a few km masked by slight folds in the ground, there are always some almost everywhere, desert heat haze makes stuff within a meter or so of terrain very difficult to see (one reason German 8.8cm flak were so deadly in desert fighting despite not being well protected, light gun shield only, long range fire, guns blending into the surface heat haze). But the ship’s crew, not particularly trained for this sort of shooting, gets an immediate good range on muzzle flashes? Then it takes some time to target Tomahawks too.
Altogether attacking nearby already engaged tanks with Tomahawks is Rube Goldberg and only semi-plausible.
So this isn’t something the pro-tank side is neglecting, it’s another case where the pro-ship posts have generally proceeded from a low level of knowledge, IMHO, with no offence.
It’s a premise of the original question that the ship is within the tank’s effective range. I know I’ve mentioned at least twice and by pointing out a few rare exceptions how destroyers haven’t gotten into effective range of tanks (albeit that was shorter in absolute range in WWII/Korea examples I gave).
But the point is why they should not. Also as the examples I’ve given have illustrated, destroyer 5" fire from beyond tank range isn’t likely to destroy tanks. Staying at safe range means relatively bigger dispersion to where a tank is a small target, and near misses will only harass the tanks, cause casualties among exposed tankers, pin down accompanying infantry and so forth. Which can stop an armored attack and has done so historically, but not as easy to destroy a tank that way. This fact is still partially obscured by the tendency to quote naval gunfire claims against tanks and not look at the results from the tank POV (I gave a classic case, Sicily 1943, I’m sure some wiki or other quick internet thing would still say how the US DD’s and CL’s destroyed lots of German tanks as they claimed, but not according to the German combat reports, the Germans did halt their armored attack on the still vulnerable US beach head though).
That’s not including the again reality stretching proposals to use current Tomahawks to go after tanks.
Well, Thermal Imaging technology has probably progressed since my time in tanks (86-92), and being detected thermally is probably more problematic nowadays than it was in mine.
Plus, most of my training was in temperate climates; Western Europe and South Central U.S.A. (Ft. Hood, TX), while my only combat deployment/experience was Middle East. While in Saudi Arabia, we used our (Woodland Camo :rolleyes:) nets considerably; as visual camo went, it sucked (as you might well imagine). How well it worked against Iraqi search radar, I would say that it was excellent “Elephant Repellant,” inasmuch as we never got attacked. So it worked, right?
It had nothing to do with the fact that Coalition Air dominated the skies pretty much from Day 1, now. Right? :rolleyes:
From my POV, people are giving thermal imaging a quasi-magical ability that, weather and terrain dependent, it just doesn’t have. Or didn’t have, at any rate. Take Ft. Hood, Texas, in summer time. A properly/tactically parked/shut down Abrams could easily disappear thermally, within 1,000 meters, against “background clutter,” like hills and rock formations. Get into a tree line and shut down, and after 10, 15, maybe 20 minutes, we look like a clump of trees, thermally speaking.
Then again, weather had much to do with it, as well. In wintertime, a tracked vehicle might stick out like a sore thumb on thermal, given surrounding ambient temperatures. Even a vehicle that’s been shut down for a while. Especially if the crew has been running the personnel heater. Buncha wimpy crybabies But given enough time, and a lack of generated heat, (engines, heaters, etc), even a tracked vehicle fades into ambient environment, even in the dead of winter.
I think a lot of our “luck” against radar searches had to do with, I’m not sure of the proper terminology, but call it “angularity,” or the angle/perspective of the searching system with respect to the target. Camouflage netting is a stone bitch to put up and take down, you don’t do it quickly either way, and it takes some care and effort to do it right, or else you get gaps in the netting, through which radar signals can penetrate and get a “return.” I don’t recollect ever having to worry about any particular “axis-of-threat” against radar searches, and having to deploy our netting accordingly.
I did have to worry about some Private half-assing the job because he’d rather be doing anything else than wrestling with camouflage netting (and I couldn’t hardly blame him; no one liked the stuff!)
I also think part of our successes was our “higher” knowing when “Enemy Air Assets” were in our vicinity, and when they were not, and moving accordingly, taking advantage of “gaps” in the OpFor’s deployments and positioning over the battle space to secure our movements and “hides.” Officer-stuff, and The Colonel didn’t exactly spend his valuable time explaining to some enlisted tanker down in one of the Line Units what’s all going on.
I do know we’ve “popped-up-out-of-nowhere” on various training exercises, all seasons of the year, to have free-run on our “enemy’s rear” because we snuck a tank company, a scout troop, an entire Armored Cavalry Squadron, right past all the various “searchers.” Hilarity ensued.
I recall most of our movements, plotted on a map, looked more like a “drunken lurch from side-to-side” than a “linear progression from point A to point B,” and that we went over terrain you’d swear a Hummer couldn’t make it through (and you’d be right; but tracked vehicles handled it just fine); as a tank driver, there were times when I knew we were more vertical than horizontal going over and through some saddle between hills/ridges, and all I could see from the driver’s seat was “sky;” one of our movements kind of looked like someone plotted it with an old Spirograph game, as we were playing cat-and-mouse OpFor against one of our sister Squadrons in the 2nd ACR in Graffenwohr, Germany.
Bottom line: Armor units might have an unnerving tendency to “Hey-Diddle-Diddle-And-Straight-Up-The Middle” more than an old Cavalry Trooper might care for, but even they bow to the reality of modern combat, and use everything at their disposal to their advantage against multiple types of threats, along multiple threat axes.
The tank could just radio for a friendly merchant vessel to… never mind.
In addition to ExTank’s fine posts on IR searches there’s another major factor.
From the air, you quickly notice that the planet is frickin’ huge. And all the manmade stuff is really tiny by comparison.
From a comfortable cruising / searching altitude in the low 20,000 foot range (assuming the enemy lacks radar-guided SAMs) on a clear day you can see 50+ miles in every direction. That’s 7500+ square miles. The closest of which (right below you) is 4 miles away, with the furthest being 50+ miles away. Using any sort of IR scanning tool you’re looking through a high powered telescope looking at just a tiny snippet of ground. You’ve got to look at literally millions of spots before you’ll luck into finding the first vehicle.
I’ve written before about the idea of staring sensors in space that can see everything everywhere simultaneously. So far they’re SF. But they’re coming. They’ll be able to cue the smaller FOV more accurate sensors to determine what sort of vehicle and whether we care about it.
Right now even fully automated IR searchers on aircraft have a hard time with big planet, tiny tank, hazy sky, and in actual combat, massive thermal noise everywhere in the scene.
Let’s back up to the OP’s question. The original question was “could [an abrams] actually destroy the destroyer.” I agree that it can. Anchor it somewhere and let the tank use it for target practice and it’ll likely be destroyed. I think there’s a lot of luck involved that will determine how “destroyed” it is. Maybe the first shot hits something vital and the ship goes up in a massive explosion. Maybe the tank fires all it’s ammo but the ship can still limp away. Luck and the orientation of the ship will likely play a large role but I agree in general that a tank can destroy a destroyer. I have no problem with that.
What I have a problem with is these ridiculous scenarios. Since the start of the thread, everyone has really been talking about a fight, although the OP didn’t actually specify that. And if we’re talking about a fight I think each side should be able to, you know… fight. In your scenario the ship is not actually allowed to do anything. I understand that’s how tanks like to fight, but why does the tank get to do everything on their terms?
Of course, from a few km away at the Suez canal, the tank may not have as much advantage as you think. It may not be able to see anything more than the ships mast, and the desert haze is going to effect the tank too, and the sailors aren’t blind and a manuevering or firing tank may not exactly be hard to see from a couple miles away, but we’ll ignore that because I know you meant for it to be able to fire at the ship at will.
I do agree the sailors may not be well prepared to use Tomahawks to attack a tank, but it’s not, for lack of a better term, the rocket science you’re making it out to be. It really is a matter of tapping out the GPS coordinates. Yes it takes some time, but we’re talking the flight time of the missiles plus some time to work out coordinates but they can do that while the missiles are in the air, assuming they think far enough ahead to actually fire a bunch of missiles at the start of the engagement. It also takes time to sink a big ass ship. It boils down to a race and some luck on neither side.
It’s funny, I don’t think anyone has raised a single objection to the ship bouncing 5 inch shells off the turret. It won’t kill it, so what’s the harm? Ok, how are they firing that gun? They’re either using radar or the optical sight. It’s probably not the radar, we’ll assume the tank is not, I dunno, on a big flat stretch of sand where radar might work. They’re using the optical sight. Sounds old fashioned. Everybody ok with that? Ok, the optical sight unit has a built-in thermal imager and automatic laser rangefinder. Is everybody still ok with that? Because now they know it’s exact position as fast as someone can calculate bearing and distance from the ship. If they have missiles in the air already, they can target it precisely or bring them down on that whole area if it’s moving.
Hey, it may not work. I never said it was foolproof. They’d have to do it under fire, and maybe every single Tomahawk misses, or maybe the ship explodes before they can finish. It may come down to luck yet there’s nothing inherently difficult about actually trying it and there’s nothing inherently difficult about landing a bunch of missiles in a certain area. Whether they pick the correct area is up to them.
Of course, if the person making the rules says the ship is not allowed to see the tank then none of this is possible. It’s back to being target practice for the tank.
Thanks. My experience is “moderately intelligent/observant end-user,” not “planning/doctrine expert” or “electronics engineer,” and my observances as an end-user are sadly out-of-date by (and just where in the hell did the time go?) about 25 years.
Still, at the junior NCO level (E-4/Corporal & E-5/Sergeant), we were always encouraged to read up on the various Field and Tech Manuals readily available to us, and a lot of the tactical doctrine from manuals like FM 17-15 Tank Platoon and FM 17-95 Cavalry Operations “stuck,” and began to clarify a lot of the “stupid stuff” we seemed to be doing, making it a LOT less “stupid.”
I don’t know much about the Arleigh Burke-class Guided Missile Destroyer beyond open-source stuff available on-line; which, as we all know, is not always to be trusted. But getting into the nitty-gritty of Tomahawk missile fire-control (and it’s ease of operation or lack thereof) is probably skirting into “gray areas,” security-wise.
That describes me pretty well too. But make mine 30 years.
As you wisely said, the more you read and thought when you were immersed in it, the more the rote facts so popular with armchair experts get replaced by the understanding of an actual expert. Expert at being at the sharp end, not necessarily an expert at being at the top or at HQ or …
Being able to hide is of limited use unless you can also move while hidden. If your enemy is paying attention, and you can’t move while hidden, then they know you’re still in the last place they saw you, even if they don’t see you right now.
Now, being able to stay hidden while motionless is still not completely useless, because your enemy might have lapses in their attention. But now you’re betting that one of those lapses happened right as you were going into hiding. Do you feel lucky?
-
The point is the likelihood, though not certainty, the ship wouldn’t be able to do much.
-
Within a few km the ship is clearly visible, because it sticks up a lot further from the surface. This gets back to ignoring how much bigger and more obvious a target the ship is. I think again this is the biggest mental block with people seeing a DD at anything but a grave disadvantage coming within effective range of tanks. In 20th century naval combat, as you surely know, just being able to see the enemy’s (ships) muzzle flashes translated to ‘can’t hit’.
-
This whole idea is highly dubious. The part in the gun section about blanketing an area with missiles to defeat a moving target based on translating gun fire control data is ridiculous.
In general pro-ship seems to be based on ‘well couldn’t a ship do X’ based on imagination, stuff it doesn’t ever do, v tanks doing exactly what they normally do, except given a much larger than usual soft target.
-
Yeah, ‘might’ not.
Whereas hit after hit from tank on big soft target will happen unless we further specific tank crew doesn’t know what it’s doing, in addition to action movie level hyper skilled and resourceful DD crew doing stuff nobody ever tried before. -
The whole problem for the ship is again that likely scenario’s, excluding flights of fancy like (current anyway) Tomahawk salvo’s v tanks, the ship is at a big disadvantage due to its size, softness and sitting out in the open by definition of a ship on the water. It’s the reason for several cases I quoted a couple of pages back of DD type ships hit by direct fire weapons they got too close to and unable to respond effectively, v no opposite cases I know of. The direct fire land weapons (tanks, direct fire arty, anti-tank weapons of infantry) by their nature are much smaller harder to acquire targets. It’s the reason the actual answer is that unarmored ships should never get in effective range of tank guns (or similar weapons to a tank’s gun) except in some fluke case where the direct fire weapons on shore for some reason have absolutely no cover (plus sure there aren’t other ones you can’t see yet).
Corry El, how does a DDG’s gun compare in AT prowess to Field Arty? I know 155mm direct hit can ruin a tanks day while a 203mm have been known to rip them apart or even knock them over. Would a direct hit really not kill the tank?
The good fighters of old first put themselves beyond the possibility of defeat, and then waited for an opportunity of defeating the enemy. To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself. Thus the good fighter is able to secure himself against defeat, but cannot make certain of defeating the enemy.
He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight. He will win who knows how to handle both superior and inferior forces. He will win whose army is animated by the same spirit throughout all its ranks. He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared.
In all fighting, the direct method may be used for joining battle, but indirect methods will be needed in order to secure victory. In battle, there are not more than two methods of attack – the direct and the indirect; yet these two in combination give rise to an endless series of maneuvers. The direct and the indirect lead on to each other in turn. It is like moving in a circle – you never come to an end. Who can exhaust the possibilities of their combination?
The difficulty of tactical maneuvering consists in turning the devious into the direct, and misfortune into gain.
In making tactical dispositions, the highest pitch you can attain is to conceal them.
So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong and to strike at what is weak.
Though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays.
Sun Tzu practically wrote FM 17-95. Luck is for amateurs and wargamers. Not that anything you say is untrue; like tho old saying goes, “You play the hand you’re dealt,” and you didn’t always get to pick the terrain you had to fight on, but an eye for terrain, coupled with a little time and effort, could turn a “hand so bad it’s a foot” into a steel-toed, booted foot ready to square itself firmly upside someone’s backside.
Luck may be for amateurs, but even the best card players get dealt shit hands, and no amount of skill can make it better; best bet is to not throw good money after bad; to fold and wait for a better hand.
But…if worst comes to worst…
Well, we’d also say, “Speed is the essence of assault.” Shoot fast, straight, and true (thank you, Capt. Jack) and take your chances. War is risk.
And if you draw to an inside straight…well, that’s what body bags and Field Mortuary Services were made for.
More likely, the family members “back home” get several flag-draped coffins, filled with 150 lbs. of sandbags.
The U.S. Armed Forces has an extensive institutional memory for “When Shit Went Sideways, And Why,” and works hard to NOT repeat the mistakes of the past. But even good commanding officers are human, and to err is human.
Luckily, I never had one of those guys. 
Fubaya keeps insisting that the DDG has to be sunk for the M1A2(s?) to declare “victory.” Erm…no. A ship can be damaged to the point of “Non-Mission Capable” without being sunk. Just ask the U.S. Navy about the U.S.S. Cole.
Depends upon where it hits. On the front slope or top of the turret: scratch one tank & crew. Back/engine deck? Scratch one tank (mobility kill), crew likely survives, but probably NOT unscathed; even if physically “whole,” they’re going to be “rattled” pretty badly.
As a counterpoint: The Cole came out a lot better than the other guy! (But yes, your point is valid)
There are also different levels of “non-mission-capable”. It won’t take very many hits at all for a ship to be in bad enough shape that the brass wouldn’t send it on a mission. But that doesn’t mean that, once it takes that amount of damage, it’s immediately going to stop fighting.
Yes, well, the U.S. Armed Forces really prefer reusable manned combat systems; makes recruitment and retention a lot easier.
True enough, and I didn’t specify “Non-Mission Capable Within The Context Of The Tactical Situation At Hand,” but that’s what I was talking about; that a tank (more likely, a minimum of at least two tanks) has inflicted enough damage that the DDG can no longer effectively fight back, or even fight back at all; it may not be sinking, but it’s no longer “in the fight.”
Just to remind everyone (IOW, not directing this towards either Raguleader or Chronos specifically), the question posed by the OP was:
I am not anti-ship/pro-tank. I was mostly weighing in to dispel some of the erroneous notions with regards to modern Main Battle Tanks in general, and the M1 Abrams family in particular, and to also correct some folk’s notion on the effective tactical employment of modern MBTs.
As other have (repeatedly) pointed out, the tactical scenario is preposterous, but, in the realm of potential military SNAFUs, not beyond the realm of possibility. “A ship’s a fool to fight a fort” is a bit of conventional wisdom with regards to ships fighting land fortifications, dating back to Lord Admiral Nelson’s time, and a modern MBT (or group of them) that is properly tactically deployed is about as close to “fortified shore battery” as we’re likely to see nowadays.
I still think the engagement favors the tanks, due to three factors:
-
The toughness/resilience of modern armor;
-
The numbers modern armor are deployed in, such that the DDG is engaging multiple tanks, not just one;
-
The “softness” of modern warships overall, coupled with the hellaciously destructive nature of modern tank munitions. Make this a shootout between M1A2s and a WWII-era battlewagon, and things change rapidly. OUCH!
Man, if a tanker ever took a shot at a Battleship, and the BB’s crew ever found out? 