Best Tank

[red_elk]

In modern war, the airfields and carriers will be primary targets too. It's easy to own the skies when you are fighting against bearded guys with AKs, not so much when your opponent may launch cruise or ballistic missiles.

 

[Zardnaar]

1. Is Leclerc good?
2. Do you think any conceptual or prototype tanks seen few years ago can outdo Abrams?
3. (Mod material) is there Abrams model or entire asset file for Civ6?
4. How good Merkava is? I'd think Merkava's ability to climb Golan Heighs made this tank something Abrams can't do.

1. Le Clerc is very expensive. Hasn't really seen enough combat IMHO, it's probably decent though.

2. Only the Armata atm and that's a maybe. The other various tanks seem to be try to make an Abrams equivalent (India, Turkey, Korea etc).

3. No idea.

4. It's good in it's intended role and how the Israelis use it. Probably not the best as a more normal tank.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Cool gif of various autoloaders in action
https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/c...ese_french/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x

(leclerc is one of them)

 

[Phrossack]

1. Is Leclerc good?
2. Do you think any conceptual or prototype tanks seen few years ago can outdo Abrams?
3. (Mod material) is there Abrams model or entire asset file for Civ6?
4. How good Merkava is? I'd think Merkava's ability to climb Golan Heighs made this tank something Abrams can't do.

1. It's mobile and has a decently long gun for high velocity APFSDS rounds. The armor seems like a good composite of titanium and tungsten alloy in the newer versions, but I don't know how good it is. Tank armor is generally pretty classified, which makes it difficult for enthusiasts to discuss. The Leclerc's light weight might mean it isn't as well armored as the newest Abrams models.

2. Of the new prototype MBTs from the last few years, I know only of the Altay and the Armata (unless you count prototype upgrade kits to existing designs). I don't know much about the Altay, but it seems to be shaping up to be a respectable, if conventional, design. Nothing revolutionary about it, and it will probably be the rough equal of newer Leopard 2 models like the A6 or A7. There are rumors of an 1,800 hp engine designed in Turkey, but I've never seen anything substantial on that and I seriously doubt it. Turkey was counting on getting a 1,500 hp German MTU engine, but politically that seems uncertain now. If they had to rely on imported 1,500 hp tank engines, how could they produce an engine stronger than any tank engine ever produced? There's also talk of eventually getting it an electric engine but lots of militaries say that and no such tank engines currently exist.

As for the Armata, current hype would have one believe it is an invincible, supersonic battleship of a tank able to operate in space. This is pretty extreme - but it is the first genuinely new, clean-slate design of a tank in service in decades, and it does seem like the way future tanks must be designed. Having an unmanned turret means they can get away with less armor there, as there is no crew inside the turret to protect. The Armata is also designed from the outset to be equipped with explosive reactive armor (ERA) and hard-kill and soft-kill Active Protection Systems (APSs), whereas other tanks simply have these added on. The new 2A82 gun is more powerful than those on other Russian tanks, while the new vertical autoloader can handle longer, more powerful APFSDS penetrators. The T14 is much bigger than other Russian tanks, but not all that much heavier, while its more powerful engine and allegedly improved transmission gives it more mobility.

I don't want to get too into it, since I'd like to fully flesh it out in a dedicated post, but the T-14 is a potentially important step forward for tank design. It isn't vastly superior to the latest Abrams - it could be a tie overall - but future tank designs will probably take more cues from the T-14 than from older designs.

3. No idea, you should ask the Civ 6 modding subforums.

4. Also a topic for a later post, but the Merkava seems overall pretty good, especially in the latest 4M version. The armor is supposed to be good, and better than most on the sides and roof, while the 4Ms come with the Trophy APS as standard. The unusual engine-first layout has led to a lot of myths about the Merkava - that it can carry infantry (it really can't), that the engine is extra armor (it really isn't), and so on. The rear hatch allows for discrete and protected disembarkation and reloading, and keeping the ammunition in the back of the hull greatly reduces the odds of taking a hit there when attacked from the front. The unique suspension of dual coiled springs apparently gives it superior off-road mobility and reduced track throwing, though I'm unclear on what its drawbacks are.

Tanks have its rol in modern war no doubt, but if the enemy owns the sky tanks are going to be the first victims after SAM sites. I doubt any armor can have much chance against a Hellfire, not to mention much more powerful missiles launched from fixed-wing aircraft like Maverick and such, or Hi-Tech cluster bombs capable of destroying all tanks in a wide area. Probably a few tanks could survive such situation long enough to face enemy land forces, but it would be anecdotic.

Sure, air power can wreck tanks. I'm just saying gunships can't replace tanks. They're vulnerable to a wider range of arms. For example, at Karbala in 2003, 30 Apaches were repelled with heavy damage and some losses by Iraqi Republican Guard armed with AA, machine guns, and rifles. Tanks would have taken few, if any, such losses from those weapons. Tanks can also linger in an area longer than gunships, and can dig into hull-down positions for a powerful defense. They're ultimately different tools for different ranges of tasks.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Sure, air power can wreck tanks. I'm just saying gunships can't replace tanks. They're vulnerable to a wider range of arms. For example, at Karbala in 2003, 30 Apaches were repelled with heavy damage and some losses by Iraqi Republican Guard armed with AA, machine guns, and rifles. Tanks would have taken few, if any, such losses from those weapons. Tanks can also linger in an area longer than gunships, and can dig into hull-down positions for a powerful defense. They're ultimately different tools for different ranges of tasks.

I think Karbala was an excess of confidence. They were lucky of not losing more Apaches.

 

[Commodore]

This sounds like the sort of thing that sounds great in theory but would quickly be found not to be workable in practice.

Well yeah, it does a lot of damage to the engine if you run it on anything other than the intended fuel source. But they just built the feature of being able to run on any combustible liquid in as a "when you have absolutely no other option" type thing.

So yeah, it would be a bad idea to try to constantly run an Abrams on vodka, but if you're out of fuel and you know a resupply isn't coming anytime soon then yeah, go ahead and pour that vodka in the tank.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

In addition to the damage you'd do to the turbines and such, you'd also have to find a metric buttload of vodka or vegetable oil or whatever to run it. The tank is already gas hungry and I assume lesser fuels would exacerbate that issue. So it goes back to it being a nice feature on paper but I just don't see it ever being practical to use in combat.

 

[Lexicus]

Aside from which fuel is hardly the only logistical requirement for the Abrams...

 

[red_elk]

This is a horrible misuse of vodka.

 

[Commodore]

In addition to the damage you'd do to the turbines and such, you'd also have to find a metric buttload of vodka or vegetable oil or whatever to run it. The tank is already gas hungry and I assume lesser fuels would exacerbate that issue. So it goes back to it being a nice feature on paper but I just don't see it ever being practical to use in combat.

You assume correctly. But like I said, it was designed as an emergency feature so that tank crews at least have options to maintain some kind of mobility if they find themselves cut off from fuel supplies.

Plus I think the more practical use for this feature would be to allow crews to use fuel they capture from the enemy, no matter what type of fuel they use. For example, in a hypothetical war with Russia, Abrams crews can still use the captured diesel fuel Russians tend to use for their tanks on the gas turbine engines for their Abrams. Or to siphon fuel from abandoned civilian vehicles. Or use the jet fuel from a captured airfield.

Aside from which fuel is hardly the only logistical requirement for the Abrams...

Of course. Obviously an Abrams is going to be inoperable if crews can't get ammunition, spare parts, other non-fuel fluids the tank needs, and food/water for the crew themselves. We were just talking specifically about fuel in this case though.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Plus I think the more practical use for this feature would be to allow crews to use fuel they capture from the enemy, no matter what type of fuel they use.

This is a really good point

 

[Phrossack]

This is a really good point

It was also the original idea behind the Leyland engine for the British Chieftain MBT of the '60s. Unfortunately the engine was extremely unreliable and crews joked that due to its armor, engine, and gun, it was the best tank in the world if it broke down in a good firing position.

The Abrams doesn't have such reliability issues but the engine costs are apparently rather high.

 

[Lexicus]

Of course. Obviously an Abrams is going to be inoperable if crews can't get ammunition, spare parts, other non-fuel fluids the tank needs, and food/water for the crew themselves. We were just talking specifically about fuel in this case though.

I think the point that the Abrams requires a logistical train to be effective stands, though. Being able to "live off the land" as far as fuel is concerned doesn't make up for that.
I am however pretty skeptical that other tanks are capable of operating while cut off from logistical support, so I don't think that's a deficiency of the Abrams per se.

 

[Phrossack]

I think the point that the Abrams requires a logistical train to be effective stands, though. Being able to "live off the land" as far as fuel is concerned doesn't make up for that.
I am however pretty skeptical that other tanks are capable of operating while cut off from logistical support, so I don't think that's a deficiency of the Abrams per se.

Yeah, armored cavalry units can't actually graze their steeds in the enemy's pastures anymore

 

[red_elk]

I read somewhere that one of the reasons for Russia to abandon T-80 in favor of T-72/T-90 was the fact that gas turbine engine requires more complex maintenance and if it breaks down, the crew will be unable to fix it on their own. While diesel engine is simpler and in some cases fixable by the crew.

There was interesting implementation of this mechanics in one videogame - US tanks required engineering vehicle for repairs, while Russian ones were replenishing HP on their own, albeit slowly.

 

[Phrossack]

I read somewhere that one of the reasons for Russia to abandon T-80 in favor of T-72/T-90 was the fact that gas turbine engine requires more complex maintenance and if it breaks down, the crew will be unable to fix it on their own. While diesel engine is simpler and in some cases fixable by the crew.

There was interesting implementation of this mechanics in one videogame - US tanks required engineering vehicle for repairs, while Russian ones were replenishing HP on their own, albeit slowly.

That could be it - I don't really know much about engines. I have read that the T-80 remains in use in the far north of Russia since its turbine engine can apparently handle the cold and ice better.

Which game is that?

 

[Lexicus]

I know that during WW2 German tanks running on gasoline were notorious for going up in big fireballs and roasting the crew. Soviet tanks running on diesel were generally safer if they got hit. The Soviets also used a few aircraft with air-cooled engines that did well in the winter air which mostly froze liquid coolant.

 

[Phrossack]

I know that during WW2 German tanks running on gasoline were notorious for going up in big fireballs and roasting the crew. Soviet tanks running on diesel were generally safer if they got hit. The Soviets also used a few aircraft with air-cooled engines that did well in the winter air which mostly froze liquid coolant.

From what I've read, the "gasoline causes fires" point has been leveled at M4 Shermans a lot, but studies found most fires were ammunition fires. Later Shermans had improved ammunition stowage for fewer fires, and according to a Russian Sherman commander, American propellant was less dangerous than Russian propellant during fires.

 

[red_elk]

Which game is that?

World War 3 - Black Gold.
It's old RTS, interesting because it used existing military vehicles as units (Abrams, Leclerc, T-80, Shilka, Apache, Mi-28, Patriot, different mobile artillery units, etc.)
But the controls were really weird and inconvenient.

 

[Zardnaar]

This is a horrible misuse of vodka.

Yeah Russians do it the other way around. They add fuel to their Vodka vs trying to run a tank.

It's not like the average Abrams is going to have an ample supply of vodka to fuel it unless you run out of gas outside a booze store.

If that happens I doubt to much booze is going to end up in the gas tank.