Running is not an option for the tank. I don’t know how long it’ll take the destroyer to reprogram a Tomahawk to hit the tank, but they’ll be able to do it eventually. I’m not sure how big a tank’s fuel supply is, but I’m certain they can’t get out of Tomahawk range without refueling. And if there’s someplace in range where the tank can refuel, well, that is the kind of target that Tomahawks are designed for. Hit the fuel depot first, and then reprogram the second one to hit the tank.
I’m not sure I see how. A chopper has a higher maximum altitude than the tank can hit. Stay above that altitude until you’re directly above the tank, then go straight down inside the (fairly wide) cone that the main gun can’t elevate to.
It’s in the getting to that altitude where the danger is. As a veteren of Microprose’s M1 tank commander (thus making me an expert on the issue), I assure you it is very possible to kill helos.
Not quite the same as the guns onshore were larger and it was also hit by 2 torpedos but it does show that a ship (heavy cruiser) that is larger than a destroyer can be sunk by guns onshore
Bets? Tomahawks aren’t designed to hit mobile targets, and the destroyer will be scrap before anybody aboard figures out how to kill the initial programming in one, if that is possible at all. Besides, a couple of rounds into the vertical launch systems and all those Tomahawks are good for is adding to the Boom! when the ship explodes.
18 rounds is more than enough to win the battle. HEAT for the helos, HESH (if you’ve got them) for the Phalanx and penetrators for the VLS.
Are we assuming that the 18 rounds the tank has ready are exactly the sort of rounds that would be most useful for this exercise? I was assuming that the tank had its default loadout, which I’m pretty sure is mostly anti-armor.
Pretty sure the standard load-out in the ready rack has both HEAT and KEP rounds. A penetrator really isn’t what you want when you are lighting up a bunker or a soft target like a truck. One of our tankers should be able to answer that question.
The (US) tank has mainly two general types* of 120mm ammunition, 1) High Explosive Anti-Tank effective against both hard and soft targets, and 2) APFSDS non-explosive sabot rounds. IMO there’s no reason to convolute an already unlikely but possible ‘what if’ by saying the tank(s indeed it’s not so likely there’d be just one) can’t switch to the more appropriate HEAT ammo, but then talk about tanks fleeing 100’s of miles chased by Tomahawks.
The more recent M830A1 HEAT is a higher velocity sub-caliber round that also has a proximity fuse option to use against helicopters. The limitation there was hinted at. The assumption for use of that round is mainly a helicopter operating ‘nap of the earth’ close to terrain to avoid genuine AA weapons, so moving in basically two dimensions at low altitude, also relatively close to the tanks compared to the max range of helicopter carried Antitank Guided Missiles. A ship’s H-60 with Hellfire kit could be operating higher up maneuvering in three dimensions, assuming a permissive air defense environment, and Hellfire’s practical range is greater than the practical range of anti-helicopter unguided proximity fuse HEAT round fire, assuming the helicopter can find the tanks at long range. https://www.orbitalatk.com/defense-systems/armament-systems/120mm/docs/M830A1_Fact_Sheet.pdf
In the main ‘western’ experience to date on the receiving end of ATGM carrying helicopters, the Israeli’s in Lebanon in 1982, their tank units didn’t always even know they were under fire until HOT ATGM’s from Syrian Gazelle helicopters hit tanks, though other times the Gazelles, and later in the campaign Soviet-made Mi-24’s, stumbled into Israeli M163 20mm Vulcan Air Defense vehicles before their missiles hit. But assuming the tank would always get a bead on the helicopter first is somewhat the inverse of the pro ship side assuming the ship could easily see and get a clear shot at tanks along a waterway, not so likely with competently handled tanks with any warning in any but the absolutely flattest and most open terrain.
In general the answer to this is that a navy which sends its (unarmored) ships into the effective range of tanks or field guns along a shore has made a big mistake, or taken a big gamble on unreadiness of the field forces. The case of Norwegian coast defenses v Blucher at Drobak Narrows is somewhat different technically: those were guns and torpedoes purpose built to sink ships. However it was a bold gamble the Norwegians wouldn’t be ready or willing to fire, which backfired disastrously there, but Blucher’s sister Admiral Hipper successfully ran past unready Norwegian guns at Trondheim. If one side or another is skillful/unskillful, ready/unready enough anything can happen, but unarmored ships especially would do well to stay out of tanks’ effective range…which they’ve almost always managed to do.
*not counting different models of the same basic type nor canister or ‘obstacle reduction’ rounds of recent years which aren’t as common.
Yeah, but you have to remember that the engagement is stipulated to be within the effective range of the tank, which others more knowledgeable than I have said is not very far. A suicide attack by the destroyer doesn’t count as a win in my book.
Optimally?
You want to be shooting a DD with some kind of APHE variant i would say.
something that leans heavy on the HE part. I dont know that the M1 has much suitable along this line as shooting naval vessels is not exactly in its game book?
Ships are full of open space, and i am thinking the inner hull does not spall so well, so you would want something that can just barely penetrate, then blow up inside where it can make the most mess of things.
That is probably one reason all the rounds you see a ship carry explode rather than penetrate 900mm or armor.
HEAT would only be good, IF the tank crew knows the ship internals well, and there is something you can make a big mess of with in the HEAT rounds jet length, otherwise your are just randomly burning holes in it with a welding torch.
Well, the 5 inch deck gun might end the battle before the tank knew what was happening.
*The gun mount features an automatic loader with a capacity of 20 rounds. These can be fired under full automatic control, taking a little over a minute to exhaust those rounds at maximum fire rate. *
That’s 1 hit every 3 second, from the 5" gun, for a full minute.
Optimally yes, but we know to begin with this doesn’t generally exist*. However modern HEAT rounds do not just burn holes and rely on spall and overpressure for behind armor effects. The liner of the charge forms a slug which flies into the target at 10,000’s fps. And if that slug can go through several 100mm of armor if can go through a longer length of air and thin steel bulkheads.
Anyway some key elements of the ship are not that deep, like the gun mounts, main gun director, etc. Other very sensitive stuff, like the VLS magazines aren’t that far behind the side shell. Also it’s conceivable an APFSDS round could find solid enough material fired through a missile magazine to convert enough kinetic energy to heat to blow it up.
Anyway let’s assume the tank crews would think ‘soft target (relatively)’ and fire HEAT. It wouldn’t be optimal, but could cause a lot of damage with precision fire, which is what tanks do within their effective range.
*again give or take minor types of rounds: the M908 120mm designed for (eg. concrete) obstacle destruction is basically an M830A1 with a steel nose and a base delay fuse. It would fit the bill pretty exactly, but isn’t used in large numbers.
I think some of the info about Tomahawk missiles is out of date. Since 2004, the Navy has used the Block IV Tomahawk which has an active two-way satellite data link to the launch platform. They can be reprogrammed instantly. They even have loitering capability and onboard cameras that can send images back to the ship.
You can fire a bunch of Tomahawks and have them loiter sending images of the tank back to you. Tell one missile to hit the coordinates of the tank. If it is moving, you adjust the coordinates and drop another missile on those coordinates. Tanks don’t move that fast, you’ll get it soon enough. You could also use all the Tomahawks to do a guided “carpet bombing” of the area around the tank.
2019 is the end of the 15 year procurement cycle for the Block IV and the missiles will be getting refurbished and upgraded to last the rest of their 30 year service life. The Navy plans to add active seekers to hit moving land targets, they just haven’t decided what type of seeker to use yet. But after 2019, the Tomahawk will officially be “anti-tank” capable.
