I don’t know why the destroyer captain would expose his beam to give the tank a larger target. He’d likely stay pointed directly at the tank, keeping the helo deck and rear launchers fairly well protected. The tank can chew up the bow all it wants, but that’s not going to sink her and it would have to blast it’s way through a lot of ship to kill the CIC. The downside is that the Aegis system would be exposed. Might be better to turn the other way and let the tank chew up the stacks and helo deck. That might take out an engine or two but there’s no way they can shoot through to the CIC and front launchers.
I’m sure the captain will know better than me how to give the tank the smallest target possible and protect as much of the ship as possible. My bet is they’d let the tank have fun chewing up the bow or stern for the minute or so it takes to start raining tomahawks down on it.
We are still positing a surprise attack, right? Because it seems to me that the amount of effort and coordination needed to present a smaller target to the tank is comparable to that required to get out of there completely. Both depend on the relevant command structure getting over the shock to realize that the tank is attacking them, and then getting the appropriate orders to the engine room and spinning up the engines. In fact, in either case the first order is probably just going to be “get us moving”, with the follow-up of where coming shortly thereafter.
That’s interesting. I would think it a good idea to beat tracks, but to do so while remaining in the tank. Certainly faster than you can run, and if the tornado does catch you, well I think I’d rather be in a tank.
Absent a sighting system designed for indirect fire, almost certainly not.
Also, the destructive power of the tank’s anti-armor rounds comes from their insane velocity. One fired high angle will not have nearly that much speed on the way back down; at least not on Earth with its thick atmosphere.
Bottom line: they couldn’t hit the DD, and if they did they’d just be dropping tumbling metal hunks from high altitude. They might make a dent in the decks, they might even penetrate a bit. But nothing like a direct shot would.
There are tank-like vehicles that can survive a direct hit from a tornado, but they also have a number of features that a conventional tank lacks. And once you’re at the point where a tornado is lifting your vehicle off of the ground, you’re screwed no matter what. But you might still take a non-direct hit from the tornado, where it’s strong enough to throw lots of debris at you, but not strong enough to lift 62 tons of steel off of the ground. In that situation, yeah, a tank is going to be a pretty good place to be.
Sometimes, you have no choice. Running aground is generally considered a Very Bad Thing, especially when engaged in combat.
The Falklands Conflict link, above, demonstrates just that - despite having substantial portions of its main armament fail, the Argentine Corvette had to continue moving deeper into the inlet - and into the face of incoming fire - in order to get to a space where they could come about.
Tank can make a hit at 8000 yards, in terms of naval gunfire that’s a laughably short range, pretty much point blank can’t miss, in fact anything inside 10000 yards is an easy target.
Yes navy helos do carry wire guided missiles, all carry anti-ship missiles - one of those striking a tank will scratch the paint.
As for other bombs, well imagine what a 400kg piece of ordnance is going to do to a tank when it lands - not good. You do not need to kill the tank, just the folk inside it and a bomb on that scale is going to lift the tank right in the air and what goes up…
Chances are the destroyer will also find the tank first, the helo will spot that huge thermal signature from a long way.
If the tank is unlucky enough to find a DD that is carrying the 6 inch gun, things become even more bleak,
Sure but why do we keep handicapping the destroyer? So far I think the tank gets to wait in ambush, attack when everyone in the destroyer is asleep, fire from defilade, maneuver, etc while the destroyer has every disadvantage short of being in dry dock for a refit.
Tank can not become one with the ground in a little trench
Tank also is incapable of outrunning jack squat when chained to an M88 which has the top speed of a turbo charged snail.
You dont really outrun a tornado of course, you simply pray that you moved out of its way, some times you get lucky.
Whether you are safer staying in or getting out of a tank is a total dice roll.
How big is the tornado, how strong is it? Looks can be very deceiving with them some times.
When you are a non meteorologist type guy out in the field you take your best guess and pray.
Staying in that day would have been the equivalent of an angry olympian god-child taking your tank and throwing it across the field.
No it wasn’t a Hollywood tank from from 10,000 feet, that’s only in movies, the tank is as you said heavy, but it flipped and threw it down the field for a good ways, you could see every place it hit the ground.
Poor M88 was on its side, chains all messed up and boom bent to hell, but she really had her heart set on that tank.
Oklahoma is a really scary place, the sky itself wants to kill you :dubious:
Tornadoes are like mother nature’s really really REALLY bad PMS episodes, all kinds of nasty crammed into a tiny package, good thing they dont come super sized.
As far as maneuverability goes, that’s the state-of-play. Ships maneuver, and that’s that. Going up on the rocks because of an enforced attitude is a FAR larger handicap.
BTW: Head-on is not necessarily the ‘best’ attitude for the ship - that masks much of the ship’s battery. Broadside unmasks the most weapons, but again, that is also not necessarily the best attitude. Saying that the Destroyer must observe any one attitude in relationship to their target is highly unreasonable - especially is so doing would place the ship in navigational trouble.
Agree the OP’s whole engagement scenario, no matter the details, plays heavily to the tank’s strengths and the destroyer’s weaknesses.
A smart Admiral doesn’t send a blue-water boat to tackle a brown-water task.
Which raises a different related question: What *is *the brown-water boat best suited to this battle? And how does it fare in place of the DD? Some of the latter day equivalents to WWII PT boats are hell for lethal. And much smaller, faster, and more maneuverable than a DD. OTOH, if anything they’re more fragile than a DD, not less.
It remains the case that a tank is very strong on Defense as well as Offense, whereas pretty much every other weapon system anyone’s military owns is much more Defense-lite.
We considered tank killing fairly easy routine work. With not much concern about one-on-one return fire. But we thoroughly respected and feared the rest of the IADS an armored brigade or larger brought along with all those tasty defenseless tanks.
As I said a couple posts ago: combat is a team sport. Talking about one-on-one matchups confuses more than it enlightens.
The tank’s 120mm (albeit smoothbore) and the DDG’s 127mm (rifled) guns are not that different in absolute accuracy at practical tank ranges, nor the fire control systems. The main difference is the DDG’s gun is in a mounting which allows it to fire at much higher angles. But higher angle/range means more dispersion, at least proportion to range. So destroyers absolutely should stay OUT of practical range of tank guns when engaging tanks, but they can’t expect to get a useful % of direct hits on tanks at those ranges. This is was well demonstrated in WWII and later. And near misses by 127mm could confound tank (/infantry) attacks, but didn’t destroy many tanks*.
Whereas at a few km (say 4, 8 seems like a stretch) the dispersion of tank and DD gun fire won’t be a lot different in absolute terms (mils, CEP), but the ship is a much bigger target. Ships are easy targets for other ships at a few kms, not nearly as easy to get direct hits on tanks at that range. And the ship is a much softer target also.
Again to make a realistic point out of a potentially far fetched scenario, this is among the reasons ships in WWII required overwhelming advantage in weight of broadside to actually destroy coastal guns: the vulnerable area of even a simple earthwork protected coastal gun was much smaller than the whole target area of the ship. The opposing guns were similar in terms of trajectory for a given caliber (great if larger caliber naval guns could outrange smaller coastal ones, but DD’s usually found themselves inside the range of coastal guns they were engaging). And at the jointly effective ranges there wasn’t a big fire control advantage for either, assuming the ship could clearly see the gun position (otherwise a big disadvantage for the ship, also the ship had to account for its own motion in the fire control solution).
Again USN (also RAN and eventually some other allied navies’) MH-60R helo’s on DD type ships can be fitted with launcher and laser designator kit for (laser guided) Hellfire missiles. The limitation is that navies have mainly used HE versions of the missile (for use against boats) not the original HEAT anti-armor version, though a version that can do both entered service in recent years. But most navies’ frigate/DD helicopters would have no practical way of fighting tanks at all. AS-12 manual-command-to-line-of-sight wire guided missiles were at one time similarly adopted from AT for use against boats or surfaced subs by naval helo’s, but not now. Sighting and warning of land forces waiting in ambush along narrow waterways is something naval helo’s (or drones) or all kinds could do in a permissive environment.
*two examples: 1. USN DD’s and cruisers vs. German tanks at Sicily July 1943: the ships correctly claimed a major role wrong footing an attack by the Hermann Goering Pz Div on the beachhead. They also claimed to have destroyed lots of tanks, which HG Pz. Div records show not to have been true, two or three, and US tanks and artillery on the beach were also firing. 2. US DD’s fire support along the southern edge of the Pusan Perimeter near Masan in July 1950 was very useful, including against KPA tanks. More than one later interview with POW’s from the KPA 105th tank div noted what a threat the ships were, including proximity fuse air bursts that made it hazardous to open hatches much less dismount, and for accompanying infantry and soft skinned vehicles. And the ships couldn’t be stopped (out of range). But they actually destroyed few if any KPA tanks. The accuracy of 5" guns hasn’t changed dramatically since, and USN DDG’s don’t have moving target guided shells.
But, why are there rocks? This encounter could take place in any location. Maybe there’s rocks, maybe there aren’t. If we assume there are rocks, then handicap the tank too. Maybe the engagement should take place in 40 ft seas. The tank will miss every shot and the destroyer can kill the tank at it’s leisure.
What batteries are masked? The only thing turning an Arleigh Burke broadside would unmask is a 25mm chain gun and a second Phalanx. The 127mm gun is on the bow and missiles are fired vertically.
If the captain chose a head-on fight, he wouldn’t need to go full speed ahead until he ran aground. He could point head-on to the tank and kill the engines or kick it in reverse.
I’m no Navy Captain but I think turning away from the tank would be the best bet. Look at an Arleigh Burke class DD. For this engagement, the CIC is all that’s really needed to launch Tomahawks. The CIC is located in an armored compartment under the bridge, below deck and above the waterline. That general area is probably where a tank would aim. I assume a hit from the side would go through a few inches of hull and armor and bulkheads and whatnot and take out the CIC.
Now, turn the ship away from the tank. Doing some guesswork in a graphics program, the CIC compartment is probably about 300 feet from the stern of the ship. The tank has to fire through 300 feet of engines, bulkheads, and various other metal things to hit the armored CIC compartment. The forward launchers are even further so they’re even more safe. The tank could fire all it’s ammunition and put holes in the aft area and certainly knock out the drive shaft and engines and leave the destroyer without mobility, but she probably wouldn’t sink and she would have her weapon systems intact and be able to kill the tank.
You don’t know, and neither do I. But by locking in a single heading, if they’re there, they’ll be a problem. Also, and I really don’t believe you’ve missed this - Fixed, closing heading means easy, zero-diflection shot for the tank. You’re talking about handicapping the destroyer? You’ve just added the single greatest possible handicap.
For improvised artillery, I was thinking of the HE/HEAT/dual purpose rounds the Abrams must carry, even if in smaller numbers than their APFSDS rounds.
As for the sighting system, I don’t know enough about artillery sighting systems to be sure but it seems like it could be handled by a fire control computer with the flexibility of software over physical tools.
What sighting systems do M270s or M109s (or similar) use for indirect fire? What does such a sighting system require?
Yes, APFSDSDU does have a secondary incendiary effect; I think (not certain) that that’s dependent upon a certain thickness/hardness of armor, though; I can easily see APFSDSDU going clean through a thin-skinned modern warship, assuming it doesn’t hit something harder whilst transiting through (like, say, the main engine[s]).
At one time (WWII/Korea/Vietnam-era) U.S. MBTs did have a limited indirect fire capability, though I don’t know how often it was ever used, or how effective it ever was; and this was initially incorporated into the first-gen M1’s. I remember our 1st Gen. M1’s in Germany (1986) still had a storage space specifically for the Gunner’s Quadrant, that mounted on the breech, for indirect fire, even though we didn’t have any Gunner’s Quadrants in our unit.
Then the U.S. Army decided the extra crew training wasn’t worth the trouble when they already had plenty of dedicated indirect platforms, and figured tanks should stick to killing shit with direct fire.
As far as 20mm-30mm proving a threat to “top armor,” I would have said “yes” not too long ago, until I read some stuff about the A-10’s cannon not being anywhere near as effective as once thought. If the rounds were somehow dropping completely vertically, then, maybe, yes. Coming in obliquely? Maybe not.
Just because the top armor is thinnest doesn’t mean it’s sheet-metal; it’s still a good 1" - 1/1/2" of armor.
I’m kind of doubtful about a modern DD’s missile capability (Tomahawks, Harpoons) posing any kind of significant threat to a modern MBT; ISTM that helo mounted wire/laser guided munitions would be a lot more effective. A modern DD’s deck gun might be a problem if the fire was “indirect” enough to come in on the top armor more vertical than horizontal; 25mm chain guns and 20mm Cheez-Whiz are only going to do one thing to modern MBT that is being handled/employed properly by its crew: mildly annoy them.
Never do an enemy a small injury.
Minor correction: Abrams have two types of AT rounds: one, Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot Depleted Uranium, or “Sabot” rounds; a ~40mm subcaliber high-velocity “dart.” Being “kinetic,” high velocity is desirable.
Two, High Explosive Anti-Tank, or HEAT, a shaped-charge warhead that turns the HE part of the round into a needle-thin plasma jet that burns through armor, similar to an Oxy-Acetylene torch rig. On steroids. Velocity is much less important a feature with HEAT rounds.
Yup. Here’s a pic of an M1-series main gun reticle (the black lines/mil indicators were added, not present on the real thing). The center circle is 1 mil; that’s 1 meter CEP at 1,000 meters, 8 meter CEP at 8,000 meters. Putting our DD at maximum effective range for the Abrams is 4,000 meters/2.5 miles. That’s only a 4 meter CEP…against a target that’s 155 meters long, with a beam of 20 meters, draft of 9.3 meters, and a waterline-stack/bridge height (that’s apparently classified, since I can’t find it anywhere on the 'nets, but rough guesstimation puts it) ~24-25 meters.
As others have noted, the OP’s scenario is not something ever likely to actually occur unless someone (Navy Captain) makes a terrible mistake. A U.S. Navy DD may operate alone; Abrams do not. Our intrepid DD would be facing at minimum 2 Abrams; more likely 4 (Platoon), possibly even 14 (Company).
14 Abrams with 50m-100m tactical spacing, cover/concealment, and 18 ready rounds of mixed APFSDSDU and HEAT each…the DD is shredded steel splinters and meat mist.
Like LSLGuy says: “…combat is a team sport.” A football team just beached a whale. Or, if you prefer, Army just beat Navy in a Pro-Bowl.
Sure, and the rocks may be to the side so the destroyer can’t turn too. Or there could be enough rocks that the ship doesn’t even wander into range of the tank.Then again, there could be enough rocks that the tank can drive out to the ship, board and beat up the sailors. If we’re arbitrarily adding things, the possibilities are endless.
You’re taking what I say to the extreme. I never said to lock in a heading and bore full speed ahead toward rocks and don’t waver at all. I said point towards (or away) from the tank and not give them a huge easily penetrated broadside target. That’s what ships do during an engagement. They can still maneuver as they see fit but I’d wager any Navy captain would do what they could to avoid turning abeam.
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. 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.
“Target, target” but it’s not burning yet. Applying a little section alternating fire, “On the wayyyy!”
There are two properties of DU that are relevant to this piece:
It’s frequently referred to as “self sharpening.” Instead of squishing or mushrooming out when it hits something hard it wears away at the point of impact producing small splinters and dust while mostly maintaining it’s shape.
Finely divided uranium ispyrophoric; it’s both highly flammable and subject to spontaneous ignition.
Combined it gives the effect mentioned. Thicker armor (assuming you still penetrate) wears away more of the penetrator on it’s way through. That produces more burning metal to be carried through the hole and scattered inside.
Which is why one of the tank platoon battle drills was how to react to fast movers attacking us when on the move. I used to jokingly describe it as reacting like a room full of roaches when someone turns on the light. Except the roaches in this case added in turning on the smoke generators 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.
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.
