Question about Modern tanks

black98z · December 5, 2001, 19:23

So modern tanks need oil, rubber, and aluminum? Don't most modern tanks use depleted uranium for thier armor? Shouldn't the resource needed be Oil, rubber, and uranium? Maybe even require a nuclear power plant? After all, you can't dig depleted uranium out of a garden.

sophist · December 5, 2001, 19:38

How can Modern Armor require Aluminum if you cannot necessarily see it yet (AFAIR, Synthetic Fibers is not dependent on Rocketry)?

Shiva · December 5, 2001, 20:53

Quote:

Originally posted by black98z
So modern tanks need oil, rubber, and aluminum? Don't most modern tanks use depleted uranium for thier armor? Shouldn't the resource needed be Oil, rubber, and uranium? Maybe even require a nuclear power plant? After all, you can't dig depleted uranium out of a garden.

No, most do not use DU armor. Some M1A2s do. All M1A2sep's do. As for others I not sure if any do. I do know that none of the russian tanks do.

Bill3000 · December 5, 2001, 21:04

Don't they use Depleted Uranium Shells?

(Sorry, I know nothing about modern military

)

Frank Johnson · December 5, 2001, 21:04

A tank with depleated uranium armor is rare. A tank with depleated uranium shells however is not!

I don't think its a big enough deal between the fancy armors, and say reactive armor, present of lots of russian tanks. We haven't seen a good tank battle where sides are reasonably matched in 60 odd years, so I can't really make the comparison.

I also don't know how big of a difference depleated uranium shells maybe, but they are present is alot of US weapons systems like the phalanx defense machine guns on warships, tank shells, and I think on things like bradleys and A-10 warthogs, and maybe helicopter gunships too.......

but I don't think all those things should require uranium :P

Bill3000 · December 5, 2001, 21:11

You should get a lot of Modern Armor w/ Depleted Uranium anyways, since Uranium depletes a lot in Civ3.

Grundel · December 5, 2001, 21:23

I think that most modern battle tanks use either reactive armor (armor that explodes when hit and therby reducing the force of the impact of the shell/missle) or Chabum armor (which is a ceramic based synthetic that is constructed in some sort of top secret way (at least that is what they say on the Discovery Channel

)

However, I beleive that the discarding sabot rounds that the main bt uses is made of depleted uranium...but I also understand that they could substitute other material for it.

However, I could be wrong

(Please forgive the spelling errors

Typing fast at work

)

Malleus · December 5, 2001, 21:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Bill3000
You should get a lot of Modern Armor w/ Depleted Uranium anyways, since Uranium depletes a lot in Civ3.

Now THAT was funny.

Here is some info from a site I found (I got interested in this discussion and decided to do a little research):

Q. What is depleted uranium?

A. Depleted uranium is what is left over when most of the highly radioactive types (isotopes) of uranium are removed for use as nuclear fuel or nuclear weapons. The depleted uranium used in armor-piercing munitions and in enhanced armor protection for some Abrams tanks is also used in civilian industry, primarily for stabilizers in airplanes and boats.
source:

www.gulflink.osd.mil/faq_17apr.htm

K

Sevorak · December 5, 2001, 21:37

DU is used in shells, mainly. It is used to augment armor but not AS the armor (can you imagine how unbelievably heavy a tank shielded with solid DU plates would be?). The Chobham stuff used on US and British tanks is synthetic ceramics stuff.

-Sev

Jaybe · December 5, 2001, 21:40

Hey, sorry but this game is not about being accurate -- it's about being a (great

) game. I'd think that there are enough requirements for modern armor already!

Modern Armor "LOOKS" like an M1 Abrams tank. It's not necessarily one. Only the APDS (armor piercing) round uses the depleted uranium. You would only use this against enemy tanks (not personnel carriers). Also, remember that "Modern Armor" is a unit, hopefully not just of tanks but with integrated infantry and support units.

Terser · December 5, 2001, 21:55

Quote:

Originally posted by black98z
Don't most modern tanks use depleted uranium for thier armor?

The modern tanks portrayed in CivIII obviously
do not use depleted uranium armor. If they did, there'd simply be no way that spearman could routinely destroy them!

Shiva · December 5, 2001, 22:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Sevorak
DU is used in shells, mainly. It is used to augment armor but not AS the armor (can you imagine how unbelievably heavy a tank shielded with solid DU plates would be?). The Chobham stuff used on US and British tanks is synthetic ceramics stuff.
-Sev

You could make a whole tank out of DU if someone wanted to. You can easily get better KE protection from the same weight amount of DU than you can of chobham so weight isnt a problem. The reason they dont is because Chobham (or any composite armour) is far better than any solid type armor vs HEAT.

XPav · December 5, 2001, 22:08

The M1A2 and the M1A1 (HA) use armor consisting of mixed layers of steel, ceramic, AND depleted uranium.

How much DU? If I knew, I wouldn't even be answering this question.

I have heard that it's a fairly thin layer near the outside of the armor to provide the best protection against KE rounds.

I do not believe any other tanks (Challenger II, Leopard 2A6, LeClerc, T-80U or T-90) use DU in their armor.

Reactive armor seems like a good idea, but the US has never, to my knowledge, deployed it on the M1-series tanks. Russia & Israel really like it though, even with the downsides that infantry have to stay well clear of the tank in combat situations.

Shiva · December 5, 2001, 22:41

Quote:

Originally posted by XPav
Reactive armor seems like a good idea, but the US has never, to my knowledge, deployed it on the M1-series tanks. Russia & Israel really like it though, even with the downsides that infantry have to stay well clear of the tank in combat situations.

The only US tanks that have had reactive are the M60 versions. Reactive armor isnt really effective against KE weapons just HEAT. Second generation reactive like the Kontakt-5 armor are more effective vs KE but the M1A2sep has a new round that renders it as effective as the first gen stuff. Wouldnt be surprised if anyone using the Leopard II had the round also since they mount the same cannon.

Jrad · December 5, 2001, 22:45

The JS-2 had an exploding gas tank...not uranium...

I think I missed the point

Dan Baker · December 5, 2001, 23:27

There seams to be a trend away from depeleted Uranium on account that the enviromental (more spefically, PR) problems far outweight most tatical advantage. This is Cold-War era stuff really.

It would be nice if you could build more Nuclear Class ships - i.e. ones that were 50% (hey, maybe 100%) faster. It takes FOREVER to move your fleet around on a large map. It's also really stupid that your nuke Subs can carry Tatical nukes, but not cruise missles.

Jaybe · December 6, 2001, 00:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan Baker
... It would be nice if you could build more Nuclear Class ships - i.e. ones that were 50% (hey, maybe 100%) faster. It takes FOREVER to move your fleet around on a large map. It's also really stupid that your nuke Subs can carry Tatical nukes, but not cruise missles.

There are no cruise missles (ala Real Life) in Civ3. In Civ3 they are GROUND LAUNCHED Cruise Missles (GLCM). Nice little bombardment unit really, and I understand it's a killer (down to the last hit point).

faded glory · December 6, 2001, 01:55

Ahh yes the good old days of Kursk are over my friends

. Now its all one sided american victories!

Battle of Medinah: 1991

Iraqi Republican Gaurd:
900 T-72's,
130 BMP's.
300 T-62's

American 2nd armored corps:
900 M1A1's
400 M2a1's

Length of Battle: Day and a half.

Casualties:
Iraqi,
1053 Iraqi Tanks

American,
8 tanks

XPav · December 6, 2001, 02:14

Quote:

Originally posted by faded glory

American 2nd armored corps:
900 M1A1's
400 M2a1's

Errr.

Check your source there buddy.

faded glory · December 6, 2001, 02:19

Sorry.....its been awhile. But the kills are correct. Just not sure of the corp name or number of americans.

(read normans book)

XPav · December 6, 2001, 02:44

Quote:

Originally posted by faded glory
Sorry.....its been awhile. But the kills are correct. Just not sure of the corp name or number of americans.

(read normans book)

Pulling out my source (Fred Frank & Tom Clancy's Into the Storm, ignoring the vain defense Franks puts up for being slow), it was 4-70 Armor, 2-70 Armor, and 1-35 Armor of 2nd Brigade, 1st Armored Division, VII Corps engaged at Medina Ridge against the 2nd Brigade of the Iraqi Republican Guard's Medina division.

Probably 9 companies of Abrams, 3 of Bradleys (or something close to that).

Definitely less than 200 US vehicles in that battle, engaging a similar amount of Iraqis, with 69 Iraqi tanks and 43 other vehicles destroyed.

Overall, I think your stats line up, but Medina Ridge was just one battle.