Obviously, Hobbes goes in for the steal and Brady and James both have to sing the Noodle Song, backwards.
Won’t that tactic be problematic if the enemy has an active airforce with AEW, datalinks and fighters with look down shoot down capability?
Destroyer every day of the week, every second of the day, it isn’t even slightly close.
If the tank is lucky it might hide and survive, but even that is very far from certain.
Destroyers are not one weapon system, they are several weapon systems, and the one that will finish off the tank is the helicopter, almost every NATO destroyer carries at least one of them, they are an integral part of a destroyers weapon systems, very closely linked indeed, and both are also closely tied to satellite systems.
And that’s not counting the harpoon or tomahawk warhead - and yes these can be set to be programmed in flight.
The tank might be able to report on the location of the destroyer - if it isn’t over the horizon - otherwise it will just explode without ever knowing what hit it.
Yes. Which is why you have to get control of the air before you can fly with impunity. High and fast, low and slow - these days if it flies, it dies.
Even though this is a “what if” scenario, it bears mentioning for anyone who might see this after that fact (like a google search), than A tank would never purposely put it self in gun range of any heavy gunned hostile naval ship. It would not go rolling down to the beach like that on a hostile shoreline.
And a naval destroyer in turn would never go and drive itself that close to a hostile shoreline either.
The destroyer has long range standoff capabilities, and the tank has the ability to hide, observe, and call for air or tactical missile etc support.
And the crews of both vehicles are going to play up their strengths and shield their weaknesses
Here’s a thought: If we’re allowing the tank to start off in the most advantageous position, how about if we set its initial position at 1000’ directly above the destroyer? I expect that the ensuing confrontation between the two probably would result in the destroyer sinking, in that one.
You’re right; there’s just no defending that play. 
Theoretically, but a conflict between peers also implies the AEW and look down shoot down capable fighters themselves have sophisticated opposing fighters and air defenses to worry about. And around and around it would go depending exactly what you assume, and getting farther from it really being destroyers (foolishly and almost always unnecessarily) putting themselves in range of tanks, where the DD definitely does not have the advantage under the realistic (within the scenario) assumption the tank unit is competent enough to use cover, and there’s some kind of cover within a few km of almost anyplace on land, but on the sea surface…not. Eggshell armed with various (not very anti-tank oriented) hammers, a modern destroyer.
But back to helo’s, as I mentioned before tank capability against them via a weapon like M830A1 sub caliber multi-purpose (including proximity fuse) HEAT round is based on
a) helo is operating in two dimensions just above terrain
b) it comes well within the max range of AT missiles it might carry before finding its tank target
In relatively open terrain (albeit with cover at low angles of view) and assuming some ad hoc situation, some militia with tanks unexpectedly uses them against USN ships in waters thought to be safe and/or they must pass, then the DDG’s H-60 helo is probably not facing enemy heavy SAM’s, fighters etc. Thus, carrying its Hellfire designator/launcher kit (which not all ‘NATO’ shipboard helo’s have, many of them would have only mg’s at best to fire at ground targets) it would probably fly higher than easy small arms/mg range from the ground, and maneuver in three dimensions, in which case the combination of tank fire control system and unguided HEAT/proximity fuse rounds would probably not be effective.
Also as I mentioned, if you look for cases of missile carrying helicopters v tanks where we have solid accounts from tanks’ POV, which is basically only the Israeli’s in 1982 v Syrian Gazelles with HOT AT missiles, sometimes the Israeli tank columns didn’t even know they were under fire till HOT’s hit tanks. Though other times the Gazelles were shot down by M163 20mm SPAA guns they apparently didn’t see until they came much closer to the armor columns than HOT’s max range.
But USN DDG’s helicopters could be effective AT weapons, not as Rube Goldberg as (the still future) capability of Tomahawk’s with moving target scene matching IR seekers. But it would still be complete stupidity to allow the DDG itself within range of tanks. IOW there’s a reason this has almost never happened (a handful cases in WWII, and analogous cases where destroyers came within range of other land weapons, like German 88mm AA positions v Italian DD’s after the 1943 surrender of Italy, AT rockets v. ARA Guerrico at South Georgia, Communist Chinese field artillery with HMS Amethyst in 1949 etc) and the cases where it did tend to illustrate how the cover and detection issue puts the big unarmored target on the sea surface at a disadvantage.
LOL.
The tank has NO advantage.
And also has no way of winnning such an engagement.
That is, barring total and unprecedented incompetence on the crew of the Destroyer.
Like, if they, one, got too close to shore, within range of the tank’s 120mm main gun–or whatever size it is, I forget–and then also could not properly discern a “firing solution” to blast it into pieces with one of their own cannons.
I believe the range of the a modern destroyer’s main 8" gun is about twice that or more of the tank’s. Thus, if the destroyer plays its cards right, it never has to come into range where the tank can even come close to hitting it.
Would this be before or after the tanks crews asses try to eat their seats 
And yea, that would be bad because the destroyer doesnt have anything to shoot back with.
Cant elevate the 5 inchers straight up, too close for a missile, cant lift the helo, and the phalanx is only a 20mm gatling gun.
Tank may still not sink it, but the DD will have no option but to surrender, which is a mission kill i am sure?
Personally i am thinking the captain will quickly assess that this is a fubar situation with no winning outcome in the fight and quickly negotiate some terms.
There was an article on Syrian Tank Hunters in Lebanon in 1982. The main article is down, but another forum posted it.
Since OP never really defined the scenario in enough detail to be sure, your points are approximately valid. (In truth, an Arleigh Burke class’s Mark 45 gun outranges an M1A2 or A2’s 120mm smoothbore by more than 15 kilometers.) So in most scenarios, the tank simply can’t reach the destroyer. It’s a gunfight between a large-caliber (anti-materiel) sniper rifle and a guy with snub .38 Special.
However, I can imagine one non-magical non-fantasy scenario where the tank has a range advantage.
As mounted on the current generation of DDGs, the Mark 45 has a minimum engagement range of 910 meters. (Cite, PDF warning, see page 17.) So that’s nearly a kilometer of safe space where the M1 can plink away with impunity while the DDG scrambles to find a weapon that can depress enough to engage. (And heavy enough to do some good – the Bushmasters and CWIS can exhaust their magazines to no effect).
How does a tank get within 1 klick of a destroyer? The destroyer is moored up at dock. And doesn’t realize the tank is going to attack it until the tank gets its first shot.
Physically possible, but preposterous unless you’re imagining a surprise attack by a rogue or hijacked tank.
That’s a useful read for general info but I’d keep in mind the questionable reliability of acig.org (where it came from originally) in general. It’s got (or had if stuff is no longer there) some unique info, unique sources, but a trade off in reliability and agenda in some cases.
I’m going on the treatment in the book “Israeli Tank Battles-Yom Kippur to Lebanon” by Samuel M Katz from the Israeli side. Two sided is best of course, but in the case tanks being attacked by AT missile armed helo’s this is the only case I know with detailed at least ostensibly reliable accounts from the tank side. There are plenty of accounts obviously from US/western AT missile equipped helo’s, but not from their targets, that I know of.
It’s possible to imagine a scenario where this could happen that might be unusual but isn’t ASB territory.
There’s a canal or strait that the Destroyer absolutely positively has to traverse for Reasons. And the other side has to stop it, and they send a force to stop it but only one tank makes it to the interception area.
In this case neither side are sleeping in their bunks. The Destroyer crew knows this is a very risky maneuver and they’re on alert and looking out for attack from land based weapons.
Obviously the smart thing on the DD side is “don’t do that”. Don’t cruise within range of shore based weapons. And from the tank side, sitting out in the open where the DD can pound you with artillery isn’t a good idea.
But I’m not sold on the idea that the DD’s guns can destroy the tank easily. The tank is designed for protection against cannon fire, and especially just HE shells. The tank can move a lot more quickly than the ship. The tank has cover and concealment.
The destroyer has no armor, because the main defense of the DD against anti-ship weapons isn’t shrugging off those weapons, it’s not getting hit by those weapons, either because they’re over the horizon, or they and their buddies take out the enemy before the enemy can hit them.
But having to traverse this strait negates all those advantages.
The Suez Canal comes immediately to mind as such a plausible place. With lots of open tank-friendly ground alongside.
As said many times above, the DD’s main gun isn’t set up for anti-tank rounds. But busting up a track is a lot easier than penetrating frontal armor. Yes, the DD’s fire control systems aren’t optimized for fast-moving and highly maneuverable tanks. But since they’re both up close and personal the time of flight of a round from the DD is very short. The DD getting a mobility kill and maybe even a mission kill on the tank isn’t out of the question.
The tank will do some real damage to the DD’s softer parts. Which is pretty much all of them compared to the land-based armored vehicles the tank was designed to engage. Whether there’s enough ammo aboard the tank to overcome the DDs damage control efforts is, to me, an unanswerable question.
As always when your weapons systems are high on lethality and lowish on defense, getting in the first effective shot (or better yet two) is often decisive.
Not like Israelis or other Western sources are free from agenda. :dubious:
What I liked about ACIG was that they attempted to get information from all sides as much as they could and stated when they did. Information is not invalid just because it came from the other side.
I think I have read parts of this book. This might be the place where I read one scene which stuck with me; an IDF Air commander was boasting of great victories in the air and was confronted by an angry Ground forces officers asking him to explain exactly how were Syrian air Assets taking such a toll on the armoured formations in spite of that.
Shows that agendas are often against opponents; on your side.
I’m still not seeing the tank winning that one. If the destroyer is going into that situation with its eyes open, it’s going to launch its helicopter and/or drones (they have camera drones, right?) from outside of the range of the tank, to see what opposition they’re up against. And it’s going to keep those eyes in the sky until it’s past tank range on the other side of the strait/canal. The tank might start off with enough cover to stay hidden even so, but as soon as it starts shooting the destroyer is going to be able to pinpoint it. It might still be able to do some serious damage to the destroyer, but in this scenario it’s not going to be able to take out the helicopter before it gets to altitude, because it’s already there.
So again let’s review a few cases mentioned where this has happened, or more often something kind of like it:
- French ‘Contre Torpilleur’ Chacal engaged by a couple of Pz.IV of the 2. Pz Div at Boulogne, May 23 1940. The was landing demolition teams and evacuating other personnel as the German units reached the city, did not return fire effectively at the tanks, but just retired to outside the harbor where later sunk by a/c.
- Italian DD’s Da Noli and Vivaldi fired on by German towed 88mm AA guns at Sardinia after the Italian armistice in Sep 1943. Suddenly ships and guns which had been allied were on opposite sides, or at least the gunners’ side under orders to force the ex-ally’s ships to surrender. Some German tanks had somewhat similar guns. The ships were unable to effectively return fire, damaged by the guns, Da Noli strayed into a minefield, Vivaldi was sunk by German a/c.
- Frigate HMS Amethyst trapped by Communist Chinese direct firing field artillery on the Yangtze in 1949. Would the Communists dare to attack a foreign ship in the river? Would they be at all accurate? (Nationalist artillery had done this at times to foreign ‘show the flag’ warships in Chinese waterways since the '20’s, but usually with poor accuracy).
- Corvette ARA Guerrico at Grytviken in the invasion of South Georgia in 1982. The ship at first attempted a ‘coup de main’ entrance to the harbor hoping the defenders were unready. But a relatively small force of Royal Marines under cover on a hillside temporarily disabled the ship with AT rockets and mg’s. Once the ship got out of range of the RM’s though and used its remaining guns to bombard their position, forcing them to surrender. AT rockets are HEAT like some tank rounds, but infantry can’t easily move out from under indirect bombardment the way a tank usually can.
These cases suggest IMO possible, though not necessarily likely, future scenario’s. They also suggest how out to lunch it is to predict the ship having the advantage in a case like this. OTOH rational use of ships’ guns against armor units outside the reach of the tanks is really a different topic IMO.
What is the terminal velocity of an Abrams?
The ship is parked offshore, out of gun range.
It sends it’s Recon Drones inland, & locates the Tank.
Long range fire destroys the Tank.