AHC: The largest warship which could be realistically sunk by single shot of shoulder-fired missile?

I don't know. The other non sourced answer was the fuel vapors excluded ordinary air with oxygen & therefore were not explosive. I have some test summaries indicating ordinary HE in small quantities wont do the trick. However the jets from shaped charges are very different in terms of temperature & compression. I'd want to see some relevant test results to understand their effects on either vapor, or liquid flammables.
 
Last edited:
Bunker fuel even in a partially empty fuel tank is unlikely to explode due to low volatility. Burn yes, explode unlikely
 
Summary/conclusion

trurle

Banned
That is, of course, the problem with a single man should fired weapon. No way you can get sufficient HE into a warhead that is usable in this scenario. That is why you need to get a bit exotic.
I do not forbid hitting arsenal. Just hitting it should be relatively realistic.

Overall, the summary of discussion:
1) Light vessel (may be up to 50 tons) may be flooded and sunk by large HE charge (up to 0.8kg filling) striking below waterline. Carl Gustav rifle (0.6kg filling @600m) may be most destructive shoulder-fired weapon of this sort.
2) Heavier warship (up to 2000 tons) can be sunk by carefully aimed shot of APHE or HEAT shell to the partially empty fuel tank or arsenal. This attack would be very sensitive to the angle of engagement though, therefore would be a situations where missile-firing infantryman would be unable to get into firing position. Panzerfaust 60 (0.8kg filling @60m) or AT4 (0.44 kg filling @300m) may be most suitable for this type of attack.
3) Striking the deck or superstructure of warship may result in "mission kill" but is highly unlikely to sink a ship outright.
4) To have a decent sinking probability, the attack must be performed at very short ranges - few hundred meters at most.
 
Strictly speaking, no. Although it would be interesting how you would imagine its sinking with shoulder-fired missile.

If the missile were fired from an elevated position (such as dockyard crane) and penetrated one of the large wooden hatches into the cargo, setting the ammonium nitrate on fire.
 

trurle

Banned
If the missile were fired from an elevated position (such as dockyard crane) and penetrated one of the large wooden hatches into the cargo, setting the ammonium nitrate on fire.
Well, if you can find a WARSHIP with a cargo hold filled with ammonium nitrate, why not.
 
I think this is a reasonable scenario: Dragon 1000m range or Javelin 4740m range.
dragon_03.jpg


javelinmp_h15.jpg


Hitting the almost anything on this would make a hell of a mess.

1200px-ORP_Metalowiec_in_Gdynia.JPG


I'd guess below the gun mounting would be a good place to aim, as would those huge anti-ship missile canisters. If either of those cooks off as a result, which is plenty plausible, then this corvette is doomed.
 

trurle

Banned
I'd guess below the gun mounting would be a good place to aim, as would those huge anti-ship missile canisters. If either of those cooks off as a result, which is plenty plausible, then this corvette is doomed.
Attacking with modern weapon also mean the target warship would be more modern, resilient target.
I doubt the damage would be fatal. Some weak points in your attack idea:
a) Targetting a box of artillery shells behind armour shield may be impossible
b) Modern artillery shells do not sympathetically detonate - likely only propelling charge of 1-2 shells which were hit directly will burn, violently enough to scatter the rest of shells and to disable gun mount, but not enough to destroy the ship.
c) Artillery shells may be not in gun mount - modern vessels usually have an automatic elevator or even belt stretched from under-deck magazine. Normally below water line where hitting it may be difficult.
d) Anti-ship canisters are mostly solid fuel motors. These either simply burn or explode weakly (1-10% of TNT equivalent, dependent on size) if hit.
e) Hitting precisely anti-ship missile warhead in canister may be difficult - too small target.
f) Anti-shipping missiles are typically designed to jettison automatically in case of in-canister fire (with blow-out panels and position to fall clear off deck). Not sure about all models, but the warship photo of which you provided seems to be designed with emergency jettison in mind.
 
This is an interesting topic, I like teasing out the details.

Attacking with modern weapon also mean the target warship would be more modern, resilient target.

The Dragon entered service in 1975 and small-medium warships last for about 20 years or more, so a ship built after say 1960 is well within the time bracket for a Dragon. As for new ships being resilient, the aluminium superstructure damage of the Type 21s in the Falklands and USS Belknap collision, and the way the Sheffield burned enough to be abandoned show that isn't entirely true.

a) Targetting a box of artillery shells behind armour shield may be impossible

I don't think many post WW2 ships have armour, certainly not smaller ships; they're just structural plate steel.

b) Modern artillery shells do not sympathetically detonate - likely only propelling charge of 1-2 shells which were hit directly will burn, violently enough to scatter the rest of shells and to disable gun mount, but not enough to destroy the ship.
c) Artillery shells may be not in gun mount - modern vessels usually have an automatic elevator or even belt stretched from under-deck magazine. Normally below water line where hitting it may be difficult.

Modern naval gun mounts extend well below decks, with loading rooms, elevators and magazines all pretty much directly under the turret. Hitting the hull with a warhead designed to penetrate through several inches of armour will most likely send white hot spall into areas full of shells and propellant, which will then likely start several fires, not to mention fires that might start from other flammable things like plastic cable insulation etc. Such fires will quite likely endanger the ship.

d) Anti-ship canisters are mostly solid fuel motors. These either simply burn or explode weakly (1-10% of TNT equivalent, dependent on size) if hit.

A solid rocket sustainer motor in an AShM burns uncontrollably (in the sense that it can't be shut off or throttled back) for something like a minute, not to mention the fast burning boost motor. It was this continual burning that doomed the Sheffield, the motor burned for quite some time after impact. Having an intense fire burn for a minute on a small ship will endanger it by melting it and starting other fires such as the missile adjacent the one that gets hit and providing enough heat to cook off the warhead.

e) Hitting precisely anti-ship missile warhead in canister may be difficult - too small target.

Hitting any part of the missile will do, and they're not a small target.
Peder-Skram--F352--(7)--A.jpg


f) Anti-shipping missiles are typically designed to jettison automatically in case of in-canister fire (with blow-out panels and position to fall clear off deck). Not sure about all models, but the warship photo of which you provided seems to be designed with emergency jettison in mind.

I didn't know that, I'll check tomorrow but the picture above doesn't look like it would be very easy to do.
 
Anti-shipping missiles are typically designed to jettison automatically in case of in-canister fire (with blow-out panels and position to fall clear off deck). Not sure about all models, but the warship photo of which you provided seems to be designed with emergency jettison in mind.

I can't speak for Russian AShM but I have been advised that the likes of Harpoon and Exocet are not armoured or able to be jettisoned. If they catch fire for some reason a fixed sprinkler system will spray the whole deck, this will also happen in the event of a misfire. Hopefully this would be enough, but in the post cold war era fire has been the reall ship killer.
 
... but in the post cold war era fire has been the reall ship killer.

Very true. The other half of this is the relatively light construction of many warships. Post 1950 the trend was to lighten the ship, depending on engineering tricks to keep them structurally sound in heavy seas and at high speed. That worked for seakeeping, but the Falklands war revealed that thinner steel skins and aluminum were more vulnerable to bomb and missile hits as well as fire. Beyond that things like obsolescent fire fighting doctrines, and the use of synthetic fabrics in crew clothing added another layer of vulnerability. With few surface ship battles from 1945 through the 1970s naval architects lost sight of combat damage resistance.
 

trurle

Banned
I can't speak for Russian AShM but I have been advised that the likes of Harpoon and Exocet are not armoured or able to be jettisoned. If they catch fire for some reason a fixed sprinkler system will spray the whole deck, this will also happen in the event of a misfire. Hopefully this would be enough, but in the post cold war era fire has been the reall ship killer.
Recorded. The fire of solid rocket motor is the severe danger for the ship designed in 1945-1985 period. Well, the trend is understandable. It was believed in the epoch what a single strike of anti-ship missile would destroy light ship anyway, therefore no point to meddle with passive defense. It turned out the designers overlooked is the miniaturization of the anti-ship missiles. MXY-7 Ohka had 1200 kg filling, while Harpoon had 221kg filling.
 
Last edited:
I could see Tirpitz (Yes, the Bismarck's sister ship) being severely damaged by one bazooka shot. Unlike Bismarck, she had 8 torpedo tubes in two banks on the stern. If a commando or resistance fighter managed to get into position looking down on the ship as it lay hidden in the fjord, hitting the torpedoes would be quite feasible. If all 4 warheads detonated (IMVHO, quite possible; correct me if I'm wrong) it could do some pretty severe damage--especially if the other 4 went off as well.

Which missile corvette is that? I've toured Hiddedsee (Tarantul class corvette) many times; she was an East German warship made in the USSR, then simply a German warship when the Germanies unified, then given to the USA. Battleship Cove is wonderful!
 
Warheads have been getting fancy for some years now, even the man portable Javelin has a dual charge warhead. A large anti ship missile can have all sorts of fancy additions to increase the damage.
 
Top