Designing America for Civ7

[BuchiTaton]

The World can either cheer at our Baseball games or hold it's breath as we threaten to drop Hydrogen Bombs from same B-52 Bombers.

Or you can be great Baseball fans but at the same time be againts American imperialism like Cuba and Venezuela.

Now that makes an exciting Civ. The American Way

Cold War super power America it is the result but how do you get there? A late era product would be highly boring if you do not have an unique way to achieve that supremacy.

Build America's continental super power mean explore, expand, attract people hungry for opportunities to growth. A big land full of resources to exploit by waves of industrious people under a reasonably fair system. The result of that is the super power that can shine on the industry, the culture, the economy, the science and the military.

You say Hydrogen Bombs, so do not forget why so many key foreign scientist wanted to go to USA in the first place. If you dont build a Giant of Opportunities you would not get anything to proyect power in the 20th century.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I don't dislike Grant on a personal level. He was a competent if not particularly outstanding general (it's easy to look competent when you're surrounded by idiots; same thing with Lee), and as a person he seems to have been neither remarkably good nor bad. But there's no getting around the fact he was a bad president. He didn't participate in the scandals of his administration, but he did enable them to happen through his poor judgment and he failed to do anything about them.

Grant had the problem as president of being an honest man in American Politics, which is an extreme and debilitating disadvantage, as J. Carter and H. Hoover could also testify (To be sure, in both their cases they were also trained as Engineers, so had the additional disadvantage of expecting political problems to be as clear-cut as engineering problems and yield to engineering, that is rational, solutions: they don't) If you aren't at least as crooked as a snake with two hinges you wind up bucking the rest of the government.

However, you underestimate him as a general. The general problem in the American Civil War was that weapons available (breechloading rifles, explosive-shell artillery) had made the 'traditional' (Napoleonic) tactics suicidal and Napoleonic Strategy and supply limitations had been made irrelevant by the railroad. Nobody in 1861 in any country understood any of that, and the 'learning curve' turned out to be bloody - in the American Civil War, the Austro-Prussian "six weeks' War, the Franco-Prussian War and the Russo-Turkish War - the Prussians' managing to get 8000 men of their Guards Corps shot down in a few hours at Gravelotte matches any idiocy perpetrated by any Civil War general with far, far less excuse.
Grant at least understood the new possibilities of operations and strategy, as his campaign against Forts Henry and Donaldson, which virtually drove the Confederacy out of Tennessee and against Vicksburg that completed the division of the Confederacy along the Mississippi. These two operations alone practically ensured that the Confederacy would "not long endure" - and in both cases inflicted far more casualties than his forces suffered.

For further discussion that has no place here, I would point out that only two Civil War generals did understand the new reality of tactics with the new weapons, and they were George H. Thomas and James Longstreet. Statistically, by the way, the most dangerous thing a Confederate soldier could do was fight in a Corps or Army against a force commanded by George Thomas: he inflicted a higher percentage of casualties on his opponents than any other commander in either army, and the three times in the war that a Confederate army was driven off the battlefield in complete rout, Thomas was in command of the attacking troops.

 

[Zaarin]

Grant had the problem as president of being an honest man in American Politics, which is an extreme and debilitating disadvantage, as J. Carter and H. Hoover could also testify (To be sure, in both their cases they were also trained as Engineers, so had the additional disadvantage of expecting political problems to be as clear-cut as engineering problems and yield to engineering, that is rational, solutions: they don't) If you aren't at least as crooked as a snake with two hinges you wind up bucking the rest of the government.

This succinctly summarizes the reasoning behind a general, cynical sentiment that's been growing in me for the past decade or so: good people make bad presidents.

However, you underestimate him as a general.

Well, I don't pretend to be a military historian. My grasp of strategy isn't horrible, but I have no mind for tactics whatsoever. My general impression, though, is that American folklore has latched on to a couple talented generals in the Civil War (Grant or Lee, depending on your, ah, background) and exaggerated their talent considerably. Unlike, say, Washington, who was undeniably a brilliant strategist if a somewhat weak tactician (but, to his credit, a weak tactician who recognized his weakness and knew how to delegate).

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The problem is that the hockey rink was played as one of many, many aspects of the atrocious "Canada live in snow" theme, that played up all the aspects of Canadian winter and somehow managed to equate Canadian winter and snow with permafrost tiles (eg, tundra), and lock all Canadian bonuses to tundra.

I would have been a lot happier with if the Hockey Rink was the only thing Canada needed for tundra. Then again I would have been fine if it was just a Stadium replacement too without needing tundra. I do think woods/lumbermills and even plains/plains hills representing "The Last Best West" would have worked out better.

I realize that's never going to happen, but no 20th century leaders would be a big step in the right direction.

I'm fine with at least Australia, because you can't have Australia without one, and Wilhelmina returning at least.

 

[Zaarin]

I'm fine with at least Australia, because you can't have Australia without one

That's the idea, yes. Honestly, I can live with Canada, especially with a colonial leader, but adding Australia feels about as relevant as adding Lichtenstein.

Wilhelmina returning

She was fun once, but Civ7 should bring back William the Silent. The Netherlands is included for its brief window as the greatest commercial superpower in the world; including a leader not from that time period doesn't make sense. Wilhelmina was a fun one-off but shouldn't be chosen consistently.

 

[jsciv69]

Or you can be great Baseball fans but at the same time be againts American imperialism like Cuba and Venezuela.


Cold War super power America it is the result but how do you get there? A late era product would be highly boring if you do not have an unique way to achieve that supremacy.

Build America's continental super power mean explore, expand, attract people hungry for opportunities to growth. A big land full of resources to exploit by waves of industrious people under a reasonably fair system. The result of that is the super power that can shine on the industry, the culture, the economy, the science and the military.

You say Hydrogen Bombs, so do not forget why so many key foreign scientist wanted to go to USA in the first place. If you dont build a Giant of Opportunities you would not get anything to proyect power in the 20th century.

If you look at my Civ model with Eisenhower leading. I specified how Ike being a WWII general should give some major military boosts. Maybe it could use some tweeks. But it gives some extra firepower to our Tanks and Bombers. Equip the B-52 with Atomic or H-Bombs. Mass Production would be key to getting that ball rolling. The Cold War America produced some very impressive military hardware in the Ike Era. As it did for the Soviets. I certainly would bring them into the game just to bring that intense Cold War drama. The Eisenhower v Khrushchev Era in particular made the whole world hold it's breath. Even a war hawk Churchill was alarmed. That Era gave us MAD-Mutual Assured Destruction. But it's perfect theatre for Civilization.

 

[BuchiTaton]

If you look at my Civ model with Eisenhower leading. I specified how Ike being a WWII general should give some major military boosts. Maybe it could use some tweeks. But it gives some extra firepower to our Tanks and Bombers. Equip the B-52 with Atomic or H-Bombs. Mass Production would be key to getting that ball rolling. The Cold War America produced some very impressive military hardware in the Ike Era. As it did for the Soviets. I certainly would bring them into the game just to bring that intense Cold War drama. The Eisenhower v Khrushchev Era in particular made the whole world hold it's breath. Even a war hawk Churchill was alarmed. That Era gave us MAD-Mutual Assured Destruction. But it's perfect theatre for Civilization.

Cold War is material for late game diplomatic mechanics, about ideological rivalties between the main powers and their coalitions involving a nuclear race. That would be used by any civs that fit these status on your game.

Whichever is America, Russia or Nubia you need to be a super power to be ahead on the production, economy, science and military needed to lead research and project your ideology. An ingame American design about a nuclear super power is point less if you dont have the tools to get there in the first place.

Expansion and immigration let you start to build a big powerfull nation since early game, something more engaging than turn to be a "cold war super power" just because at very late game. Strong early America would be more likely to survive and naturaly growth to a world power, while a late game designed one would be easy to destroy before be a threat or if survive would be odd to start spamming expensive nuclear bombers and super carriers.

 

[Ranger0001]

I personally do think Dwight Eisenhower would be a good leader with a possible Lincoln as another leader. I feel that although he is done over and over he is strongly associated with America in the civ series and should be kept in it. I also do like the idea of a land-grant university. I feel that there should be a larger bonus of some sort for recently founded cities of America to represent Manifest Destiny.

 

[Zaarin]

Lincoln as another leader. I feel that although he is done over and over he is strongly associated with America in the civ series and should be kept in it.

I hope if we get a returning president it's Washington. I dislike Lincoln and would rather he sit out for a few more iterations...or ten...or forever.

 

[jsciv69]

I personally do think Dwight Eisenhower would be a good leader with a possible Lincoln as another leader. I feel that although he is done over and over he is strongly associated with America in the civ series and should be kept in it. I also do like the idea of a land-grant university. I feel that there should be a larger bonus of some sort for recently founded cities of America to represent Manifest Destiny.

This why I think America should have multiple Leaders. Just as 6 Civs had different leaders in Civ VI. No doubt it's expected most of us have our ideal choices. As there are sure reasons for each choice. Here are my choices.

1st choice: Dwight D Eisenhower- Traits and specialties- Militaristic, Industrialist. Special Feature-Interstate Highway System Achievement-Nuclear Power, 50 states(gains Hawaii in 1959)
2nd choice. Ulysses S Grant- Militaristic, Progressive. Achievements- 15th Amendment, Creating Justice Department

Shared Bonuses. Military recruitment, Population Growth, Mobilization(key theme)
Unique Units. M60 Battle Tank(replaces Tank), B52 Bomber(replaces Bomber)

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

the Prussians' managing to get 8000 men of their Guards Corps shot down in a few hours at Gravelotte matches any idiocy perpetrated by any Civil War general with far, far less excuse.

huh? All White fancy cuirassiers charging French Linear Infantry armed with Chassepots and French point defense 'Heavy Repeaters'? and all of them still use single shot muzzleloading pistols like their knightly grandfathers in Jena? (This unit comprised entirely of lesser noblemen--'knights'--)

For further discussion that has no place here, I would point out that only two Civil War generals did understand the new reality of tactics with the new weapons, and they were George H. Thomas and James Longstreet. Statistically, by the way, the most dangerous thing a Confederate soldier could do was fight in a Corps or Army against a force commanded by George Thomas: he inflicted a higher percentage of casualties on his opponents than any other commander in either army, and the three times in the war that a Confederate army was driven off the battlefield in complete rout, Thomas was in command of the attacking troops.

Never really heard of the two before.

Shared Bonuses. Military recruitment, Population Growth, Mobilization(key theme)
Unique Units. M60 Battle Tank(replaces Tank),

M60 is 'on par' with contemporary 'Main Battle Tank' (By then a distinction between MBT and Mediumtank isn't a clear cut--yet. because Brits, Americans and Soviets still working on Post WW2 'Heavy' tanks concept because top brasses still believed that Heavy Tanks like Tigers, Conquerors (British Postwar Heavytank), and Iosif Stalin series still remain relevant. What actually made 'M60' superior to rivals comparable weapons like Soviet T-55 and T-65 (including Chinese Copies)?

Actually I like the term 'Cavalry Tank' more . US Army was the first to completely converted 'Carabinier' cavalry into dedicated armored units without changing unit names. Actually they 'redefined' cavalry with pragmatic tactical uses and not physical appearances (horse units).

https://www.cavhooah.com/pages/armored-cavalry
^ M-48 with crossing sabers. the latter is cavalry emblem though @Boris Gudenuf cited that the US Army Cavalry NEVER do saber charges like Continental Europeans regularly did.

 

[SirMediocrity]

Personally, I think Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe (or Madison), Andrew Jackson, and James Polk would be the most "compelling" choices for the American leader in civ 7. I personally find earlier American presidents to be more interesting.

 

[Evie]

The odds of Mister Trail of Tears being a leader in civ sounds suspiciously like absolutely never.

 

[Zaarin]

Personally, I think Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe (or Madison), Andrew Jackson, and James Polk would be the most "compelling" choices for the American leader in civ 7. I personally find earlier American presidents to be more interesting.

Monroe and Madison are a little boring, and Jackson and Polk would be extremely controversial (Jackson for being, well, Jackson, and Polk for carrying out the most transparently imperialistic war in American history [short of the Spanish-American War, perhaps] which laid the groundwork for the Civil War to come). I wouldn't object to seeing Jefferson, his suspect personal life notwithstanding, but I'd rather see his friend-turned-rival-turned-friend Adams.

 

[jsciv69]

huh? All White fancy cuirassiers charging French Linear Infantry armed with Chassepots and French point defense 'Heavy Repeaters'? and all of them still use single shot muzzleloading pistols like their knightly grandfathers in Jena? (This unit comprised entirely of lesser noblemen--'knights'--)


Never really heard of the two before.




M60 is 'on par' with contemporary 'Main Battle Tank' (By then a distinction between MBT and Mediumtank isn't a clear cut--yet. because Brits, Americans and Soviets still working on Post WW2 'Heavy' tanks concept because top brasses still believed that Heavy Tanks like Tigers, Conquerors (British Postwar Heavytank), and Iosif Stalin series still remain relevant. What actually made 'M60' superior to rivals comparable weapons like Soviet T-55 and T-65 (including Chinese Copies)?

Actually I like the term 'Cavalry Tank' more . US Army was the first to completely converted 'Carabinier' cavalry into dedicated armored units without changing unit names. Actually they 'redefined' cavalry with pragmatic tactical uses and not physical appearances (horse units).

https://www.cavhooah.com/pages/armored-cavalry
^ M-48 with crossing sabers. the latter is cavalry emblem though @Boris Gudenuf cited that the US Army Cavalry NEVER do saber charges like Continental Europeans regularly did.

We could call it M60 Patton. As it was a descendent of the Patton Class Tanks. It was one of the most mass produced of it's kind. It took on some variants as time went on. It stayed in service for about 30 years. It even saw action in Desert Storm. Which makes me want to consider using the Abrams as a UU to replace the Modern Armor.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

We could call it M60 Patton. As it was a descendent of the Patton Class Tanks. It was one of the most mass produced of it's kind. It took on some variants as time went on. It stayed in service for about 30 years. It even saw action in Desert Storm. Which makes me want to consider using the Abrams as a UU to replace the Modern Armor.

This is one place where Humankind got the units right where Civ has not for several iterations of the game now.
Civ's "Tank" and "Modern Armor" are essentially words with so broad a meaning as to be meaningless: a Tank would be any tracked armored vehicle since 1917, Modern Armor any armored vehicle built in the Modern Era.
The Humankind game by contrast, used Medium Tank and Main Battle Tank, and both are much more specific and useful terms:
The Medium Tank that was the most-produced tank type of World War Twoall had similar characteristics: they all mounted main guns with both an antitank and a decent high explosive capability - usually 75mm or larger cannon. They weighed in at 25 - 45 tons, had top speeds in excess of 30 - 40 kph. And what is less often noted, only a few countries in the world managed to design and build them: USA, Britain, Germany, USSR, France (whose Somua of 1940 was in fthe weight and speed class but under-gunned).

The Main Battle Tank dates very precisely to 1960, when the first: the US M-60 went into production. What made it different from the post-war Medium Tanks like the M-47, Centurion and T-55 was that it had the mobility of a light tank and the armor and firepower of a heavy tank. Both the US Army and German Army in WWII found that statistically it took on average about 8 - 12 rounds from a main gun for a tank to 'kill' or knock out an enemy tank, The M-60's 105mm cannon could knock out any tank in the world with one shot, and the gunner did not even qualify on the basic gunnery range unless he hit the target within 15 seconds of spotting the target, and at ranges averaging 50% longer than the average engagement range in WWII (WWII = 800 meters, Tank Table 8 = 1000 - 1200 meters in 1965)

Since the MBT first appeared everywhere in the 1960s, further developments have been the 120mm rifled or smoothbore cannons with automatic loading systems, electronic fire-control computers, laser rangefinders, composite and reactive armors, anti-missile/aircraft/helicopter systems, fire suppression systems, and full-spectrum vision devices and sights. However, since the antit-tank measures have also proliferated: "fire an forget" missiles launched from ground vehicles, light vehicles, helicopters, aircraft and UAVs, 'top attack' weapons launched from mortars, artillery, UAVs and even man-portable weapons, and programmable mines and reactive munitions, it is hard to prove that the MBT has achieved any significant increase in effectiveness in the past 50 years or simply kept pace with the other anti-tan weapons.

Full Disclosure: I was a driver on an M-60A1 tank in 1964 - 65, and most of the tank commanders in my unit were Korean War veterans (the pre-Vietnam Army) and so I got first-hand explanations of the differences between post-WWII medium tanks or light tanks and the M60 Main Battle Tank series.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

This is one place where Humankind got the units right where Civ has not for several iterations of the game now.
Civ's "Tank" and "Modern Armor" are essentially words with so broad a meaning as to be meaningless: a Tank would be any tracked armored vehicle since 1917, Modern Armor any armored vehicle built in the Modern Era.
The Humankind game by contrast, used Medium Tank and Main Battle Tank, and both are much more specific and useful terms:
The Medium Tank that was the most-produced tank type of World War Twoall had similar characteristics: they all mounted main guns with both an antitank and a decent high explosive capability - usually 75mm or larger cannon. They weighed in at 25 - 45 tons, had top speeds in excess of 30 - 40 kph. And what is less often noted, only a few countries in the world managed to design and build them: USA, Britain, Germany, USSR, France (whose Somua of 1940 was in fthe weight and speed class but under-gunned).

The Main Battle Tank dates very precisely to 1960, when the first: the US M-60 went into production. What made it different from the post-war Medium Tanks like the M-47, Centurion and T-55 was that it had the mobility of a light tank and the armor and firepower of a heavy tank. Both the US Army and German Army in WWII found that statistically it took on average about 8 - 12 rounds from a main gun for a tank to 'kill' or knock out an enemy tank, The M-60's 105mm cannon could knock out any tank in the world with one shot, and the gunner did not even qualify on the basic gunnery range unless he hit the target within 15 seconds of spotting the target, and at ranges averaging 50% longer than the average engagement range in WWII (WWII = 800 meters, Tank Table 8 = 1000 - 1200 meters in 1965)

Since the MBT first appeared everywhere in the 1960s, further developments have been the 120mm rifled or smoothbore cannons with automatic loading systems, electronic fire-control computers, laser rangefinders, composite and reactive armors, anti-missile/aircraft/helicopter systems, fire suppression systems, and full-spectrum vision devices and sights. However, since the antit-tank measures have also proliferated: "fire an forget" missiles launched from ground vehicles, light vehicles, helicopters, aircraft and UAVs, 'top attack' weapons launched from mortars, artillery, UAVs and even man-portable weapons, and programmable mines and reactive munitions, it is hard to prove that the MBT has achieved any significant increase in effectiveness in the past 50 years or simply kept pace with the other anti-tan weapons.

Full Disclosure: I was a driver on an M-60A1 tank in 1964 - 65, and most of the tank commanders in my unit were Korean War veterans (the pre-Vietnam Army) and so I got first-hand explanations of the differences between post-WWII medium tanks or light tanks and the M60 Main Battle Tank series.

Yes. Patton is MBT and not Medium Tank.
1. When did the term 'Main Battle Tank' emerges and when did the 'transitions' from Medium Tank to MBT takes place? i.e. In AFV inventory lists, i did play Steel Panthers II (and 'remake') before, originally in purchase screen the vehicles (M48 and M60 respectively) are classified as 'Medium Tank'.
So in game terms. only less than 20 turns apart that Medium Tanks phased out in favor of MBT. So to make the two different units relevance in game. in addition to 'tech upgrades'. When should Medium Tank to shows up? (1930? right after Vickers released 6 ton Mark E and Mark F 'light tank', (which were made for exports)? (which its designs and performaces were actually forefathers to Medium Tanks, able to move significantly faster than WW1 tracked AFVs and having a decent cannon that can fight any land units by that time). What is the first 'medium tank' that's developed or released right after Vickers export?
2. Did 'American' armor doctrines really good particularly under George S. Patton himself? should 'Cavalry Tank' be Mediumtank replacements for Americans? because they were the first to fully reorganized cavalry as fully tank units while someone else maintained 'cavalry' as horse units either as lancers or 'mounted infantry'.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Yes. Patton is MBT and not Medium Tank.
1. When did the term 'Main Battle Tank' emerges and when did the 'transitions' from Medium Tank to MBT takes place? i.e. In AFV inventory lists, i did play Steel Panthers II (and 'remake') before, originally in purchase screen the vehicles (M48 and M60 respectively) are classified as 'Medium Tank'.
So in game terms. only less than 20 turns apart that Medium Tanks phased out in favor of MBT. So to make the two different units relevance in game. in addition to 'tech upgrades'. When should Medium Tank to shows up? (1930? right after Vickers released 6 ton Mark E and Mark F 'light tank', (which were made for exports)? (which its designs and performaces were actually forefathers to Medium Tanks, able to move significantly faster than WW1 tracked AFVs and having a decent cannon that can fight any land units by that time). What is the first 'medium tank' that's developed or released right after Vickers export?
2. Did 'American' armor doctrines really good particularly under George S. Patton himself? should 'Cavalry Tank' be Mediumtank replacements for Americans? because they were the first to fully reorganized cavalry as fully tank units while someone else maintained 'cavalry' as horse units either as lancers or 'mounted infantry'.

Quick and dirty guide to American Armor and the MBT.

The first two Main Battle Tanks were the US M60, standardized in 1959 and in production by 1960 and the Soviet T-64 that went into service in 1964. As stated, both of them were quantum leaps in armor protection (the T-64 had some of the first plastic/steel composite armor used anywhere and the M-60A1 added Kevlar to its 300+mm thick turret armor), firepower, and mobility. Officially, the term Main Battle Tank was not adopted by the US Army until 1963, when the last of the old M103 heavy tanks were retired, but the term was in general use since the end of the 1950s and is now specifically applied to the M60, T-64 and most subsequent tanks built since 1965.

Medium Tank has a number of definitions, frequently only referring to the weight of the vehicle, which is immaterial and simply a by-product of the important measures of performance. So, for example, the German PzKpfw IV was originally classified as a Heavy Tank because it was supposed to support the PzKpfw III Medium Tanks with high explosive fire when it was introduced in 1937. But in fact, it weighed just a little over 20 tons, so by the standards of 1941 and later it was barely a Medium Tank by weight.
What makes a tank effectively a Medium Tank is that it is armed with a main gun that can fire both effective antitank projectiles and a decent high explosive projectile. Thus, it is effective against armored and unarmored targets. Combined with a speed 3 times faster than a running man (30 kph or better), and it can outshoot or out maneuver anything else on the battlefield - in theory.

So, the Vickers tanks were effectively Light Tanks or Infantry Support tanks - heavy on the machineguns, but mounting only a 47mm gun which might be effective against 1930s tanks, but had a mediocre high explosive round (2.5 kilograms weight). The German PzKpfw IV or the Soviet T-28 were arguably the first Medium Tanks, both designed in 1933 - 34 and both carrying a medium-velocity 75mm or 76mm cannon (10 kilogram weight High Explosive shells). By 1942 the German PzKpfw IV with a high velocity 75mm cannon, the T-34 with a high velocity 76mm, and the US M4 Sherman with a 75mm cannon, were all in the Medium Tank category and all served in that capacity for the rest of the war.

The US Army after WWI officially assigned all tanks to the Infantry Branch. The Cavalry were not officially allowed to have, develop, or play with tanks at all, so instead they developed 'combat cars': which were fully tracked light tanks by another name. The M2, M3 and M5 series were all very fast (70 kph or better, about 50% faster than the average Medium Tank) but mounted only a 37mm cannon and, originally, up to 5 machineguns. They were classic 'cavalry tanks' in fact, but in 1940 when the Armor Branch was established in the US Army the Cavalry Branch refused to give up their horses and so ceased to have any effect on the development of US armor or armored units. (Their horses disappeared anyway, since most US Cavalry formations in WWII were Mechanized Cavalry with armored cars, armored half-tracks, jeeps and light tanks but for Historical Trivia fanatics, the last mounted cavalry charge by US horsemen was made by a mounted scout troop of the 10th Mountain Division in April 1945 just a week before the war ended in Europe!)

George Patton also had very little effect on US Army armor development. He simply followed the adopted doctrine very well. The US doctrine was that Armored Divisions were for exploitation and pursuit but not assault operations, so he never backed equipping US tankers with heavier and more effective tanks with better anti-tank capabilities. Basically, he was a very good horse cavalryman who understood the classic cavalry actions of pursuit, envelop, and screen and transitioned very well to using mechanized forces for those tasks, but never appreciated the capabilities of a balanced armored formation for assault operations the way the German Panzer Division was used.

 

[jsciv69]

Quick and dirty guide to American Armor and the MBT.

The first two Main Battle Tanks were the US M60, standardized in 1959 and in production by 1960 and the Soviet T-64 that went into service in 1964. As stated, both of them were quantum leaps in armor protection (the T-64 had some of the first plastic/steel composite armor used anywhere and the M-60A1 added Kevlar to its 300+mm thick turret armor), firepower, and mobility. Officially, the term Main Battle Tank was not adopted by the US Army until 1963, when the last of the old M103 heavy tanks were retired, but the term was in general use since the end of the 1950s and is now specifically applied to the M60, T-64 and most subsequent tanks built since 1965.

Medium Tank has a number of definitions, frequently only referring to the weight of the vehicle, which is immaterial and simply a by-product of the important measures of performance. So, for example, the German PzKpfw IV was originally classified as a Heavy Tank because it was supposed to support the PzKpfw III Medium Tanks with high explosive fire when it was introduced in 1937. But in fact, it weighed just a little over 20 tons, so by the standards of 1941 and later it was barely a Medium Tank by weight.
What makes a tank effectively a Medium Tank is that it is armed with a main gun that can fire both effective antitank projectiles and a decent high explosive projectile. Thus, it is effective against armored and unarmored targets. Combined with a speed 3 times faster than a running man (30 kph or better), and it can outshoot or out maneuver anything else on the battlefield - in theory.

So, the Vickers tanks were effectively Light Tanks or Infantry Support tanks - heavy on the machineguns, but mounting only a 47mm gun which might be effective against 1930s tanks, but had a mediocre high explosive round (2.5 kilograms weight). The German PzKpfw IV or the Soviet T-28 were arguably the first Medium Tanks, both designed in 1933 - 34 and both carrying a medium-velocity 75mm or 76mm cannon (10 kilogram weight High Explosive shells). By 1942 the German PzKpfw IV with a high velocity 75mm cannon, the T-34 with a high velocity 76mm, and the US M4 Sherman with a 75mm cannon, were all in the Medium Tank category and all served in that capacity for the rest of the war.

The US Army after WWI officially assigned all tanks to the Infantry Branch. The Cavalry were not officially allowed to have, develop, or play with tanks at all, so instead they developed 'combat cars': which were fully tracked light tanks by another name. The M2, M3 and M5 series were all very fast (70 kph or better, about 50% faster than the average Medium Tank) but mounted only a 37mm cannon and, originally, up to 5 machineguns. They were classic 'cavalry tanks' in fact, but in 1940 when the Armor Branch was established in the US Army the Cavalry Branch refused to give up their horses and so ceased to have any effect on the development of US armor or armored units. (Their horses disappeared anyway, since most US Cavalry formations in WWII were Mechanized Cavalry with armored cars, armored half-tracks, jeeps and light tanks but for Historical Trivia fanatics, the last mounted cavalry charge by US horsemen was made by a mounted scout troop of the 10th Mountain Division in April 1945 just a week before the war ended in Europe!)

George Patton also had very little effect on US Army armor development. He simply followed the adopted doctrine very well. The US doctrine was that Armored Divisions were for exploitation and pursuit but not assault operations, so he never backed equipping US tankers with heavier and more effective tanks with better anti-tank capabilities. Basically, he was a very good horse cavalryman who understood the classic cavalry actions of pursuit, envelop, and screen and transitioned very well to using mechanized forces for those tasks, but never appreciated the capabilities of a balanced armored formation for assault operations the way the German Panzer Division was used.

It's my hope that if there is a Civ VII. we get both the M60 for America and T-64 for Russia. That would be some battle. How would you compare the two head to head?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

It's my hope that if there is a Civ VII. we get both the M60 for America and T-64 for Russia. That would be some battle. How would you compare the two head to head?

Unless there is a massive change in the game dynamics, late Era Units are almost never used in an actual game. I think in 3500 + hours in Civ VI, I've actually build a Modern Armor unit twice - most of my games are long over before they ever become available.

But if they do manage to make the late game units meaningful, then the T-64 and M60A1 would be good candidates. Between the two, as a vehicle the T-64 probably had a slight edge initially: better main gun, better armor. But the M60A1 was quickly outfitted with electronic fire direction computer and laser range-finder, and there was simply no comparison between the training levels of the crews. Late model M60A1s ripped up Soviet T-80s in the Gulf War in 1991 using advanced APDS uranium-penetrator ammunition. Also, the T-64 was a b****h to keep running: the power plant was an entirely new design with just too many new features, and they had continuous trouble with it. Also, when they put in an automatic loader, they took out a crewman, giving a 40 - 45 ton tank only a three man crew. That meant in the field that if they broke a track (not too uncommon with poorly trained drivers) they would be lucky to be able to repair it without outside help: it is a muscle-intensive job even with four men (been there, done that!), so a relatively minor bit of damage basically knocks out your tank for much of the day or longer.