06-12-2001 04:23									#1
	Question about Modern tanks Remove this text

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.

	06-12-2001 04:38									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

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

	06-12-2001 05:53									#3
	Re: Question about Modern tanks Inflate your Upload Space

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.

	06-12-2001 06:04									#4
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Don't they use Depleted Uranium Shells?

(Sorry, I know nothing about modern military )

	06-12-2001 06:04									#5
	Remove this text

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

	06-12-2001 06:11									#6
	Put an end to popups!

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

	06-12-2001 06:23									#7
	Put an end to popups!

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 )

	06-12-2001 06:35									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

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

	06-12-2001 06:37									#9
	Increase the size of your Attachments

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

	06-12-2001 06:40									#10
	Tired of ads?

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.

	06-12-2001 06:55									#11
	Re: Question about Modern tanks Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

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!

	06-12-2001 07:00									#12
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

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.

	06-12-2001 07:08									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

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.

Last edited by XPav on 06-12-2001 at 07:16

	06-12-2001 07:41									#14
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

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.

	06-12-2001 07:45									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

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

I think I missed the point

	06-12-2001 08:27									#16
	Increase the size of your Attachments

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.

	06-12-2001 09:43									#17
	Get a bigger avatar today!

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).

	06-12-2001 10:55									#18
	Put an end to popups!

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

	06-12-2001 11:14									#19
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by faded glory American 2nd armored corps: 900 M1A1's 400 M2a1's

Errr.

Check your source there buddy.

	06-12-2001 11:19									#20
	Tired of ads?

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

(read normans book)

	06-12-2001 11:44									#21
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

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.