Things That Can Punch Through A Modern Destroyer General

[Propman]

It's been often stated that Destroyers, along with most modern day warship designs are considered "unarmoured", or "soft skinned". What I am interested in however, is how weak a shell does "unarmoured" actually mean? Can it withstand the ram of an ironclad? Rocket-propelled grenades fired from some ragtag band of pirates (would they just punch right through without detonating)? A broadside from a Ship of the Line decked with 36 pounders? I'd be interested if anybody knew what these ships are made out of exactly, and how they'd react to being hit by various projectiles.

Now of course, we all know that modern warships simply try not to get hit when it comes to these sort of things, and this is just an interesting comparison with a bunch of nonsensical theretical situations, akin to an M2 Bradley fighting off a bunch of medieval footmen.

[RutgerS]

Chuck Norris can punch through anything.

[Wake_Island]

Any shells 5 inches and over will penetrate it.

The ships are made of aluminum unlike the STS steel on a Iowa class.

[thegreenbaron]

Depending on where it's hit, a .50 HMG round can pen the sides of the superstructure.

[brian333]

It depends upon the ship.

 

There are no Spruance Class Destroyers left afloat, so it is safe to say, their hulls were made of 1" structural steel, (actually something like 13/16th's, but nominally 1",) and their superstructures were made of 5/8" aluminum, with some being upgraded with an application of 7/8" monel armor.

 

They could take pretty much any small arms fire and hand grenades, but RPG's and anti-tank weapons would penetrate. Of course, designated critical spaces in the superstructure were better protected, but exactly how so was never designated.

[AirCrewChief]

A good rule to follow is that the main armament of a ship will generally penetrate most parts of said ship above the waterline.  The waterlines tended to be heavily armored, as did the turrets, bridge, and funnel areas.

[Hellgrunt]

An M2 Bradley would shred a Destroyer with just the 25mm.   :honoring:

[mikeyb17]

A good rule to follow is that the main armament of a ship will generally penetrate most parts of said ship above the waterline. The waterlines tended to be heavily armored, as did the turrets, bridge, and funnel areas.

 

The problem with WWII battleships , like the Hood, had to worry about governmental budgets on updating older ships of the line. Plus the fact that many Battleships or Battle Cruisers were built in WWI and were not updated to the newer style of battle and equipment used in 1941 when the Hood was sunk. The HMS Hood had her decks made much thinner than they should have been, to save weight and money. Therefore plunging fire ( from great height ) would penetrate the deck plating more easily then it should have.  Although this is not the reason she was sunk by the Bismark so easily , sinking in 3 minutes with a ship of this size must have been horrific for the 3 survivors out of a crew of  1,418    . The decks were increased in thickness from 1.5" to 1.875" from the change of design done in 1917 from the 1915 design criteria.  Information came to light - "In a number of almost incredibly prophetic diagrams, the Admiralty sketched the path of the shells and showed how the addition of 3-in [76mm] of additional deck armor could have prevented potential disaster." From "The Loss of HMS Hood , A Re-Examination" By - William J. Jurens through - International Naval Research Organization This informative article can be found at - http://www.warship.org/no21987.htm - I hope others may find this information useful as we are talking about the history of a mighty fighting ship where on many good men gave their lives.

Incidentally I worked for Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co. from 1972 to 1978 as a machinist , building/repairing US Naval ships Subs to Aircraft Carriers and I am proud of my work on these fine ships. ( Yes I play WOT and WoWp, was closed Beta on WoWp, at almost 61 years of age and will play WoWarships when it comes out)

[Guest]

An M2 Bradley would shred a Destroyer with just the 25mm.

25mm gun...man.. 

[Ariecho]

IJN Hayate, a Kamikaze-class destroyer was sunk by a 5-inch battery.

[brian333]

An M2 Bradley would shred a Destroyer with just the 25mm.

 

An M2 Bradley would be shot to smithereens long before the DD was in its range. But yes, 25mm weapons would be effective in holing non-critical parts of warships. That's a stretch, though to go from holes in the structure to sinking or even badly damaging it.

 

Which is why modern DD's don't go into gun range. They are stand-off attack craft, intended to launch missile attacks at enemy ships. Their guns are intended for vessels and targets that cannot shoot back, and not ship-to-ship naval combat.

[Hellgrunt]

 

An M2 Bradley would be shot to smithereens long before the DD was in its range. But yes, 25mm weapons would be effective in holing non-critical parts of warships. That's a stretch, though to go from holes in the structure to sinking or even badly damaging it.

 

Which is why modern DD's don't go into gun range. They are stand-off attack craft, intended to launch missile attacks at enemy ships. Their guns are intended for vessels and targets that cannot shoot back, and not ship-to-ship naval combat.

 

First: The Bradley's 25mm firing HE would do a hell of a lot more than "holing non-critical parts"

 

Second: The topic of this post is, "Things That Can Punch Through A Modern Destroyer General" 

 

The topic was about what can punch through a Destroyers hull, not about it fighting land targets. 

 

It would be suicide for a Bradley to attempt to engage a Destroyer.

 

[Elouda]

 

First: The Bradley's 25mm firing HE would do a hell of a lot more than "holing non-critical parts"

 

Actually, they wouldnt.

 

One of things people routinely forget is that ships are big. From the outer hull to the centerline means 10m of distance on a Burke class DDG, which probably equates to 3-4 internal bulkheads.

 

This by its very nature prevents point-detonating HE of smaller calibers and small HEAT rounds like RPGs from doing anything apart from damage to the immediately adjacent compartment, unless the weapon strikes the same area so many times that you literally eat away the entire outer hull at that location.

 

But in essence, a single (or even a dozen) small caliber HE rounds or larger HEAT rounds is not going to put a ship the size of a DDG in danger. To achive this requires a larger caliber (3in/76mm is a good start) with preferably impact-delay fuzed projectiles. Even larger weapons (127mm) can get away with HE simply because of the larger holes they put in things. Obviously, even relatively 'light' missiles (in the context of AShM's) like the AGM-65 Maverick will do significantly more.

[oldjacktar]

Back in the '70s, when i was in the army, I I once found an experimental paper in the base library about taking an 8' "Atomic" howitzer, tilting it on it's chassis frame and wedging support under it's rear trucks so as to allow the gun to have a lowered barrel depression angle, thereby allowing it to engage ships as in improvised coastal battery for an anti-shipping role. Once, while in arty school, I heard talk from an older sergeant who spoke about taking a 155 mm gun, and mounting it on a specially prepared earthen ramp that did the same thing- (tilted the gun into a lower depression.) so as to make it easier to shoot up river traffic in the Mekong Delta.

While I doubt that the 25 on a Bradley could punch thru a destroyer HULL, it could PROBABLY do significant damage to the topsides. The most VULNERABLE targets on deck would PROBABLY be communication gear, stuff like antennas and radar dishes. Probably the HARDEST to damage would be the BRIDGE or the TURRETS. Somewhere in between would be the non critical stuff that is in between- stuff like sleeping quarters for officers and the wardroom.

The BIGGEST problem with all this, is that a Bradley AFV would probably never be in range of it's 25 mm autocannon.

On the other hand, I have heard of stories of attempts by coastal snipers using powerful high powered long range sniper rifles trying to kill Naval Officers on deck and in range during both WW II and Vietnam.One of the interesting tricks about this is that while the decks and walls of the bridge may be armored and resistant to damage, the WINDOWS on the BRIDGE are most likely NOT bulletproof. And Officers of naval vessels LIKE having big easy view windows on the bridge because it makes it a lot easier to see what is going on out there. Unfortunately, it also makes them a bit vulnerable to incoming rounds, as well.Perhaps all of you pirate navy fans and small boat squadron enthusiasts would be well advised to include a really good sniper in your crew should you choose to mount a "Cutting Out" sortie.

[wardog224]

No RPGs will not punch through it... At least RPG 7s maybe the RPG-30 but I believe any other will not go through.

[Sandbaggerone]

Modern warships are designed to flex and giveway to the shock of heavy detonations. This precludes armor. If you look at the hull of modern warships you will notice all the "pockmarks" between the ribbing. The look is called hungry horse. That said they resist small arms pretty well...even rpgs will not really do much because they whole hull is like spaced armor. All the important bits are kept as far inside the hull as possible.

[mcarling]

 

Actually, they wouldnt.

 

One of things people routinely forget is that ships are big. From the outer hull to the centerline means 10m of distance on a Burke class DDG, which probably equates to 3-4 internal bulkheads.

A 25mm HE round would never get near the centerline, but a 25mm solid metal AP round would punch through a few internal bulkheads before stopping -- unless it hit something solid like a generator, large pump, etc.

[CatalinaPBY]

Well, the USS Cole stood up surprisingly well to 400 to 700 pounds of shaped C4. On the other hand, the HMS Sheffield experienced what can only be termed an epic fail against a single Exocet that didn't even detonate. And then there's the USS Stark that survived two Exocets, one which did and another which didn't detonate. Given what the two American vessels survived, although neither was terribly effective afterwards, they were still basically seaworthy. I think all this talk of Bradley guns can be put to rest.

 

EDIT:

 

My father is a military historian with a history of government service.  He's also a novelist with about two dozen books in print which you can find on the shelves of Barnes and Noble (the Kris Longknife series of military science fiction).  He suggested I look up "Kevlar Armor".  That's all he'd really say.  Interestingly 'nuff, there's about 130 tons of kevlar armor on the Burkes.  I think that could have a serious impact on the penetration of any 25mm autorounds.

[mcarling]

I think all this talk of Bradley guns can be put to rest.

It's not so simple.  HE rounds and AP rounds are completely different.  0.50 cal (12.7 mm) punches holes in 1 inch (25 mm) steel plate at close range.  Soviet 14.5 mm machine guns (which can be mounted in the back of a small pick-up truck) reliably punch holes in 1 inch steel plate from a few kilometers away.

[Tinman_DDG87]

There was a good reason that the old destroyer's were called "Tin Cans" and sailors onboard destroyers were oft called "Tin Can Sailors". It didn't take much to penetrate these vessels. Speed was their greatest asset. Much like a hybrid between the scout tank class and medium tank class in WoT. While you could look at PT boats as a real scout and Destroyers as a medium class, its not quite accurate. Destroyers could launch a precise attack very quickly and move out of the way of incoming fire with easy and great maneuverability. 

 

Today's destroyers are replacing cruisers. I served on an Arleigh Burke Class Destroyers the U.S.S. Mason and I'll be honest. There lies a great issue with the computer systems onboard failing during training exercises. The Spy radar loves to malfunction and we often have to do what we call a "cold load". Restarting all the combat systems on the ship. This always made me nervous, as in a fire fight, it could very well cost us the ship. Also, while we do use ESSM (evolved sea sparrow missiles) that come four to a canister and launch with great speed at incoming missiles are are accurate, if that system was down due to combat systems CSS malfunctioning, I would not put my faith in CIWS; as you can not reload CIWS quick enough and the detonation of the incoming missile would be very close to the ship.

 

Not to mention the VLS (vertical launch system) runs off of 1980's computer technology and those circuit boards are "frying out" way too often - and are un-godly exspensive for the Navy to replace for no reason at all. Much of these circuit cards could be repaired by anyone with a basic understanding of electronics, yet we are more often than not - not allowed to due such repairs to these circuit boards.