42 rounds into a destroyer (if that’s what we are assuming) would be a kill, surely? Again, read **Tranquilis’ **post I linked above.
Tomahawks need a targeting package uploaded telling them where to fly and where to hit, normally this requires comprehensive map packs, etc. It’s not as easy, with Tomahawks anyway, to launch a bunch line of sight and blanket an area.
The auto cannons are 25mm, they aren’t going to do squat to an Abrams.
The only damage the helo could do, is as you mention a kamikaze attack, because it carries no weapons that can affect a tank.
It comes down, as I’ve mentioned above, to whether the destroyers 5 inch gun can hit the Abrams. I don’t know enough about its accuracy to suggest if that is likely or not.
It was definitely a very interesting post. I base my gut feel in part on the fact that the Abrams carries mainly Sabot and HEAT rounds both designed to penetrate thick armour plate, it’s catastrophic to the internal space on a tank once penetrated, but I wonder how much damage it might do to the far larger internal spaces of the destroyer.
I admit I’m completely spitballing here though. They might be horrendously effective and easily kill the destroyer.
Thing is that as Tranquilis points out, they would set fire to things. And 42 fires would be the end.
I was on a guided missile cruiser in the 1980’s that had two Mark 45 5 inch 54 caliber guns, one forward and one aft. The Mark 45 isn’t like land based artillery; there were different bullets for different missions and the powder was in a separate container, either 20 or 40 pounds, IIRC. Their range was about 10 to 13 miles, depending on the mix of bullets and powder. We carried about a thousand rounds of anti air (VT-Frag), High Explosive-Point Detonator (HE-PD), illumination rounds and White Phosphorus (Willie Peter). At that time, when the Marines called on us for NGFS (Naval Gunfire Support), the forward observer would give us the coordinates and we would input that into our fire control console. We would deliver one round and he would adjust and we would keep firing until he told us we were right on the money. Now there is a 5 inch 62 calibers with a longer range and they can use drones with GPS that are linked to the ship’s fire control system. The M1A’s main gun only has a range of about one and half miles. Basically, a ship could stand out of range of the tank and keep plinking until they got them. No need to get that close to the shore. Aside from getting hit, you might run aground.
Yes but OP stipulates that the tank and ship are within range of each other.
Is the assumption in this scenario that there is no resupply and both sides are limited to resources on board? The ship can play a much longer game.
I think the range questions settles it. When one combatant has longer range, the other’s only way to win is to close that range, and that’s impossible when there’s an impassible barrier between them.
I vote destroyer, fairly convincingly.
I think the question pre-supposes that the two combatants are within effective range of each other. If the range is 50 miles, this doesn’t make a lot of sense does it?
Are we taking the embarked helo into consideration? I don’t think the MH-60 is an incredibly bad ass helo, but it can help with targeting and does have some firepower.
The M1A1 has a rate of fire of 6 rounds per minute? The destroyer has 16 to 20. If they are close enough the CIWS system will rain some serious depleted uranium on the Abrams as well.
I know there has been a lot of chatter here on battle damage to the destroyer. But every hit to the destroyer will not sink it, or start a fire, or disable ever weapons system. There is a lot of dead space on the destroyer, that can take a hit with little effect.
This question is somewhat addressed in a novella, The Fireflies of Port Stanley, an alternative history of the Argentine invasion of the Falklands. Three Sherman Firefly tanks see off the Argentine fleet. Their 17-pounder guns have a range of 10,000 yards and sink the ARA Santisima Trinidad, a Type 42 destroyer, which is supporting the invasion.
I’m actually wondering if the Sabot on a Tank might not over-penetrate a Destroyer hull, as sometimes happened with powerful naval AP shells used against them.
I.e. The shot just punches straight through leaving a small entrance and exit hole because there’s not enough armour/hull thickness to offer significant resistance to the projectile.
How about this scenario: The destroyer is moving through the Suez canal. The presumed friendly tank parked close to the canal decides to open fire on the ship as it passes by. They’re about 100 meters apart and there’s no place for either vehicle to hide. The destroyer can accelerate, but not maneuver. The tank can chase it or drive around in circles. Who wins?
In the Solomon Island campaign in WW2, the U.S. (1500-ton) destroyers showed an unexpected resilience. (Unexpected to pre-war strategists, that is.)
Would forty 120mm holes at the waterline of a Arleigh-Burke sink it? Maybe not… the crew is trained in damage control.
Would a magazine detonation sink it? Well, yes.
The Arleigh-Burke comes with a 127mm gun of it’s own, with an effective range far exceeding that of the tank. Can this gun hit a tank at the OP’s range? (Spoilers: Yes!)
Does this gun come with ammo capable of penetrating the 600mm of armor on the Abrams?
According to this: Navweps link, all I see are high explosive [HE] ammo, but no armor penetrating [AP] stuff. So I don’t know.
The correct posts 
on that thread were saying 1" max, a thickness quoted in some sources for side protection of USN CG-47 type ‘cruisers’, for literally a destroyer, USN DDG-51 type, less than 1".
IOW the tank’s main gun could easily penetrate the destroyer, its .50 cal mg could probably also depending on range and ammo type, its coaxial 7.62mm mg might even in some range/ammo combinations, as to thinner plate on the superstructure, antennae etc.
Whereas the DD itself has no weapons highly effective in destroying tanks. Tanks under bombardment at long range from DD type 5" fire will tend to move out of the area. Actually KO’ing even WWII tanks with 5" naval fire was often claimed but reports from the tank units involved show it was not often actually achieved. As another poster mentioned, a DD might use proximity fuse HE or else WP ammo in such a case, they did do so firing at armor targets in Korea, Vietnam, etc. Again this would harass tanks, inflict casualties on exposed personnel and/or force the tanks to button up; perhaps damage fire control equipment, drive supporting infantry to cover, etc. generally make the tanks retreat. But there would need to be a large number of point detonating rounds fired for every direct hit on a target that small, since these cases were uniformly where the ships were out of practical range of the tanks’ guns and thus firing at fairly long range themselves.
Looking at the few historical cases where destroyers came in practical range of tanks’ guns (French destroyers in 1940 fleeing Channel ports as German tanks arrived) an unarmored warship wants no part of a fair fight with a tank, fair as in coming within range of the tank’s main gun.
The only difference in modern case is the USN DDG has an H-60 helicopter which can fitted with a kit to fire Hellfire missiles, which is originally an antitank missile though that wouldn’t be the common use by a ship’s helo. But AT versions of the missile would be a real menace to a tank. But again the mother ship being in range of the tank would be stupid. Also the ship’s AA missiles have no real capability against tanks, not if there’s any cover whatsoever to confuse the radar guidance and/or the tank to withdraw behind.
I don’t know anything about missiles, but could the crew not just turn the guidance thing off and just ignite the thrusters and put a impact detonation fuse in? The missile would just take off and fly vaguely towards whatever it was pointed at, assuming they don’t need very advanced systems just to go where they’re aiming at.
The auto cannons might only be 25mm, but remember that it is only a single tank, not group of tanks where if one was disabled they could continue fighting. A spray from 25mm cannons could easily destroy the external sensors, viewing ports and sidearms on a tank, and perhaps even damage the main cannon, thus disabling the tank.
Surely there would have to be some sort of bombs on the ship. Could the crew harvest some warheads from torpedoes or missiles and just rig them up to explode on a timer or when impacted and just drop them on the tank? If not, they could easily just make their own bombs out of some fuel to cover the tank with burning liquid, or douse it with boiling oil.
Yes, the tank is in a good comfortable effective range of hitting the destroyer effectively. The closest the tank can get without the destroyer moving from it’s reef is 200 meters.
How would this scenario go if the destroyer got one of those fancy AGS (or equivalent) systems like on the Zumwalt?
Depends on who gets off the first shots.
The destroyer’s CIWS might be able to shred the tank, and there might be several CIWS’s. And the 5-inch gun.
The tank has to take out the CIWS’s ***and ***the 5-inch gun. So get off several quick shots in succession.
However…is the CIWS ever designed to hit a land target, even one close nearby? Isn’t it designed only for aerial targets?
Assuming the tank is able to hit the destroyer, it could inflict massive damage on the warship during the time it takes the ship’s crew to slowly tinker/engineer with all of this.
I was just coming in to mention that story.
Like anything else, you have to specify whether or not the two sides have spotted each other, or indeed even know the other is there.
Assuming the classic Phalanx, the latest version has the capability of tracking small boats and similar, so *maybe *could target a tank?
It’s only firing 20mm shells though remember, you could damage all the external fixtures, but that simply won’t punch through frontal armour, which is armoured at the level of a WW2 Battleship.
Could it, though? The tank could make approximately 84 holes in the destroyer, each about 11 cm in diameter. Will that sink a destroyer faster than the damage control crews can patch or plug them? For that matter, is it even possible to “sink” the destroyer in the highly-artificial scenario we’re positing? If it’s in such a tiny lagoon, it’s probably only just barely above the bottom as it is.