User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/11/2016 12:21:09 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Neva been done before II https://defense-update.com/images_large3/turkish_upgraded_m60a1.jpg IIRC, they were trying to sell that upgrade package to Taiwan. Should be a really good tank in the defense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2016 12:21:33 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ha ha, WTF is that thing? 
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Neva been done before II https://defense-update.com/images_large3/turkish_upgraded_m60a1.jpg Ha ha, WTF is that thing?
Basically an M60 with skirts and an M1 turret. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2016 12:23:56 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Question for our resident tank experts. Why does the barrel have that profile, with the larger diameter section? Thermal shield and bore evacuator. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2016 12:26:13 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thank you. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Question for our resident tank experts. Why does the barrel have that profile, with the larger diameter section? It is a bore evacuator that keeps smoke from coming back into the hull. somewhat... 
there is still a turret evacuator fan. love eyes watering trying to load an HEP round... memories of my old rides. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2016 12:26:27 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wonder who the buyer would be....Taiwan? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2016 12:26:52 PM EDT
[#6]
That's one heck of a shot trap under the turret..........
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Neva been done before II https://defense-update.com/images_large3/turkish_upgraded_m60a1.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2016 12:28:01 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't know about that, but for fighting in COIN it would probably be a better tank. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The Ratheon upgrade in the article seems rather underwhelming to me in the armor department. Adding on some slat armor isn't that much of an improvement compared to what has already been developed, and I don't think it is nearly enough to allow it to survive a modern tank v tank engagement. I don't know about that, but for fighting in COIN it would probably be a better tank. The shape of the hull would lend some survivability against IED's, but any semi-modern ATGM should be able to punch even the front of the turret without slat or reactive armor. Against the T-90's mentioned in the article I don't think it would fare well at all. -K |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2016 12:52:56 PM EDT
[#8]
I know absolutely SHIT about them, but I LOVE TANK THREADS!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2016 12:55:52 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The shape of the hull would lend some survivability against IED's, but any semi-modern ATGM should be able to punch even the front of the turret without slat or reactive armor. Against the T-90's mentioned in the article I don't think it would fare well at all. -K Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The Ratheon upgrade in the article seems rather underwhelming to me in the armor department. Adding on some slat armor isn't that much of an improvement compared to what has already been developed, and I don't think it is nearly enough to allow it to survive a modern tank v tank engagement. I don't know about that, but for fighting in COIN it would probably be a better tank. The shape of the hull would lend some survivability against IED's, but any semi-modern ATGM should be able to punch even the front of the turret without slat or reactive armor. Against the T-90's mentioned in the article I don't think it would fare well at all. -K I think it would do great against the T-90 when you consider that the thing is mostly a video game tank.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2016 12:59:06 PM EDT
[#10]
What happened to all the M60 tanks?
Are they in storage someplace? We used to have them at the local reserve, but I have not seen them in years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2016 1:02:40 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Weren't they already killing machines? Still pretty effective too, USMC M60's raped Iraqi armor just about as hard as Abrams did. Hmm, wonder if there's a study comparing actual combat effectiveness between the two. Wiki: Quote HistoryQuoted:
"Raytheon Can Turn Old American-Made M60A3 Tanks Into Killing Machines" Weren't they already killing machines? Still pretty effective too, USMC M60's raped Iraqi armor just about as hard as Abrams did. Hmm, wonder if there's a study comparing actual combat effectiveness between the two. Wiki: In early February 1991, US Marines used 200 M60A1s of the 2nd Battalion drove north from Khafji, Saudi Arabia into Kuwait. In Kuwait, they encountered an Iraqi force of T-54/55, Type 69, and T-72 tanks at Kuwait City International Airport. The Marines won this battle, destroying some 100 Iraqi tanks with only one M60A1 lost I had no idea we used M60s in GW1 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2016 1:04:24 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Neva been done before II https://defense-update.com/images_large3/turkish_upgraded_m60a1.jpg I think one of those took a Kornet to the turret last week and survived. There was a liveleak video and an article on the armor upgrade. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2016 1:11:10 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Or Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Czech Republic, Ukraine, Georgia. . . . . . Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Wonder who the buyer would be....Taiwan? There is a tiny chance of Lithuania getting tanks,none at all for Latvia and barely above that for Estonia. There is talk of getting some actual tanks within 5 years but I doubt anything will come of it and to be realistic,a bunch more Javelins would be a better fit. There are lots of M60s still in service with nothing in current production affordable to replace them other than Russian/Chinese. Thailand bought Ukrainian but the deliveries have been very slow. Upgrading would be a fair choice for countries like Tunisia,Greece,Saudi Arabia even that still have fleets of the things. Used M1s are just too expensive for most countries as Leo 2s. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2016 1:13:09 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This was the last active duty M60A3 I saw. =( Nice brand new tracks on it too! <a href="http://s82.photobucket.com/user/kalski/media/Vehicles/Picture028.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j254/kalski/Vehicles/Picture028.jpg</a> What's with the WW2 uniforms? Camp Wolters? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2016 1:13:35 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think one of those took a Kornet to the turret last week and survived. There was a liveleak video and an article on the armor upgrade. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Neva been done before II https://defense-update.com/images_large3/turkish_upgraded_m60a1.jpg I think one of those took a Kornet to the turret last week and survived. There was a liveleak video and an article on the armor upgrade. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2016 1:16:22 PM EDT
[#16]
Old school armor, yaay!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2016 1:18:18 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's one heck of a shot trap under the turret.......... Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's one heck of a shot trap under the turret.......... Quoted:
Neva been done before II https://defense-update.com/images_large3/turkish_upgraded_m60a1.jpg Something about the new armor must make it irrelevant. The leopard 2 has the same kind of thing. Always wondered about it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2016 1:22:28 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Or Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Czech Republic, Ukraine, Georgia. . . . . . Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Wonder who the buyer would be....Taiwan? Is Germany still selling surplus Leopard II's? Seems like those would be a better deal for someone potentially facing Russian forces. Hmm, Germany might not find them to be so surplus any more. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2016 1:37:40 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Or Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Czech Republic, Ukraine, Georgia. . . . . . Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Wonder who the buyer would be....Taiwan? Balts won't buy it, Poles probably don't need it, perhaps the others. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2016 2:24:33 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Something about the new armor must make it irrelevant. The leopard 2 has the same kind of thing. Always wondered about it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
That's one heck of a shot trap under the turret.......... Quoted:
Neva been done before II https://defense-update.com/images_large3/turkish_upgraded_m60a1.jpg Something about the new armor must make it irrelevant. The leopard 2 has the same kind of thing. Always wondered about it. The armour is spaced, so the real geometry differs from what you see on the outside. Shot traps are also less of a concern with modern long-rod penetrators. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2016 2:25:48 PM EDT
[#21]
I'm one of very few on this board with ARTEP and gunnery experience in M48A5, M60A3, M1IP and M1A1. That doesn't make me resident expert, but this is a topic I feel I know pretty well.
That said, fuck the M60A3. Leave that pile of shit in the past where it's antique ass belongs. Fielding that fucking death trap on the modern battlefield would be a death sentence for the poor fucks shoved into them. Seriously, you'd have to beat my ass unconscious to get me in there with open storage of ammo for the 120. You'd have to padlock the hatches from the outside and I swear the first thing I'd do when I woke up is come hunting the assholes that got me in there. Even if you retrofitted the sophisticated fire detection and suppression system from the M1 into it, it was never designed to carry the ammo for the 120. The M60 has open ready racks and turret floor ammo racks. To modernize this pile of shit into a half-assed modern MBT, you'd need to replace the turret entirely. You cannot safely store the combustible-cased ammo in open racks. It's unconscionable to even consider putting crews in that environment. Beyond that, the M60 series are totally outclassed as MBTs when you consider vehicle profile and automotive abilities. Slow, loud, smoky, thin-skinned and REALLY tall. Tracking displacing M60's on the far side of a berm during force-on-force training was easy as hell. And IMO any country foolish enough to field those shitpiles is putting their national treasury at risk for the mountain of money they're going to have to invest in replacement torsion bars for those fuckers. The M60A3 is dead and buried. It needs to stay that way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2016 2:29:56 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Baits won't buy it, Poles probably don't need it, perhaps the others. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Wonder who the buyer would be....Taiwan? Baits won't buy it, Poles probably don't need it, perhaps the others. If Germany is actually serious about trying to keep the Budeswehr at strength or even expanding it a slight bit (something I'm not sold on yet really) then Leo II exports will probably be on hold for a while, at least; so I can see the Poles being interested in improved M60s...unless they can get a really good deal on M1s. The Poles are serious as a heart attack about their tank arm and they won't buy Russian so they have to look at other countries who build a good tank that they can actually afford more than 12 of. Leos were at a (ridiculously) reasonable price point for them but if that dries up they'll have to look elsewhere for MBTs and I don't think they would be willing to pay what France or the UK would charge for theirs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2016 2:33:16 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I had no idea we used M60s in GW1 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
"Raytheon Can Turn Old American-Made M60A3 Tanks Into Killing Machines" Weren't they already killing machines? Still pretty effective too, USMC M60's raped Iraqi armor just about as hard as Abrams did. Hmm, wonder if there's a study comparing actual combat effectiveness between the two. Wiki: In early February 1991, US Marines used 200 M60A1s of the 2nd Battalion drove north from Khafji, Saudi Arabia into Kuwait. In Kuwait, they encountered an Iraqi force of T-54/55, Type 69, and T-72 tanks at Kuwait City International Airport. The Marines won this battle, destroying some 100 Iraqi tanks with only one M60A1 lost I had no idea we used M60s in GW1 You want to know how I remembered that? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2016 3:01:10 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is a really good idea, so good in fact that I fully expect it to be shelved. I remember walking about the tank graveyard at Eglin AFB. They did not look that rundown to me. Rows upon rows of them just sitting there. I think the AF use some for base defense. USAF EOD guys got the keys to a few M60's and 113's to deal with UXO's, the M60's used for that duty usually had the dozer blade thingy's on the front. Idea was to push the uxo's off the runways/taxiways or use the 50 cal to blew em up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2016 3:11:47 PM EDT
[#25]
When my oldest was around 5 or 6 we went to a civil war re-enactment. National Guard was there showing off the big big transport helicopter they had, some HumVee's and a Tank.
My son climbed up on the tank while I was talking to what I am guessing was the CO for the unit there. My son started climbing on one of the tracks. One of the grunts yelled at my son to get off the tank, that he might break something. The CO turned and yelled over at the grunt asking if his mother shovel fed him paint chips as a child or something to that effect. For the rest of the afternoon he had the grunt sweeping the parking lot (it was a gravel parking lot) |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2016 3:16:16 PM EDT
[#26]
I wonder what operating costs on one of these would be versus something like a Leopard 2?
If you can get a bunch more M60s to do a bunch more tank stuff than more modern stuff for the same money... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2016 3:22:52 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I wonder what operating costs on one of these would be versus something like a Leopard 2? Probably not that different. Operating costs are something that needs a hard look. It costs about $100,000 to move an ABCT one mile. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2016 3:24:22 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Probably not that different. Operating costs are something that needs a hard look. It costs about $100,000 to move an ABCT one mile. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I wonder what operating costs on one of these would be versus something like a Leopard 2? Probably not that different. Operating costs are something that needs a hard look. It costs about $100,000 to move an ABCT one mile. I figure you probably don't have to do much "stuff" with a tank before you've spent as much on fuel, ammo, spares, etc. as the initial purchase price. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2016 3:29:27 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I figure you probably don't have to do much "stuff" with a tank before you've spent as much on fuel, ammo, spares, etc. as the initial purchase price. The real cost is personnel. The two guys driving the fuel truck cost something like $125,000 a year, with salary, benefits, training, veterans benefits and retirement costs. I just read an article that said putting a diesel engine in the M1 would reduce the logistics formation by three 5,000 gallon fuelers. On a 19 day movement (think OIF I) that is 220,000 gallons of fuel saved. But it is also $375,000 a year in personnel costs. For each ABCT, in peacetime as well as war. Honestly I think we should set a goal of cutting per mile consumption for each unit in half over the next five years or so, and make it happen. Use climate change to justify the expense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2016 3:37:27 PM EDT
[#30]
Bring back the 19E!!!
Oh, quite a few sitting on the floor of the Gulf of Mexico if you into restoring old cars armor. ETA; A lot of these were cleaned up, loaded onto barges and pushed into the gulf of mexico to form artificial reefs. The Florida Wildlife website lists them in their long ass list of artificial reefs. The closest to me is about 30 miles by land then 7 miles out. I was a 19E back in the day and I am scuba certified. I keep promising myself I am going to dive some of them when I get the chance. So far that day hasn't come. 
I even have my own damn boat! WTF is wrong with me??? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2016 3:40:04 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Group buy? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2016 4:02:07 PM EDT
[#32]
I wanted to be a tanker when i enlisted, but then the recruiter found out that my parents were married when i was concieved so i was disqualified.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2016 4:42:12 PM EDT
[#33]
I'm sure there are certain things you just can't make better without starting a whole new tank. But still, a fully modern M60 could probably be competitive on the battlefield. Not ideal, but still a threat for enemy armor.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2016 4:46:30 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Very much so, but also louder, more visible exhaust, slower, weak acceleration and frequent drive train issues. Hopefully the new diesel fixes some of this without making it into the fuel hog the M-1 is. TBH, no idea why they're doing this, we have several thousand more or less brand new M-1s in storage, I can't imagine dropping a more frugal engine into them wouldn't be much more cost effective than replacing everything but the hull and turret on the M-60. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: ETA: Given that the M60 is diesel powered rather than turbine powered, is it more fuel efficient than the M1 Abrams tank? Very much so, but also louder, more visible exhaust, slower, weak acceleration and frequent drive train issues. Hopefully the new diesel fixes some of this without making it into the fuel hog the M-1 is. TBH, no idea why they're doing this, we have several thousand more or less brand new M-1s in storage, I can't imagine dropping a more frugal engine into them wouldn't be much more cost effective than replacing everything but the hull and turret on the M-60. Tankers I've talked to, said the advantages of having a Turbine versus a Diesel, outweight the fuel consumption advantage that the Diesel has. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2016 5:28:48 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
[ If Germany is actually serious about trying to keep the Budeswehr at strength or even expanding it a slight bit (something I'm not sold on yet really) then Leo II exports will probably be on hold for a while, at least; so I can see the Poles being interested in improved M60s...unless they can get a really good deal on M1s. The Poles are serious as a heart attack about their tank arm and they won't buy Russian so they have to look at other countries who build a good tank that they can actually afford more than 12 of. Leos were at a (ridiculously) reasonable price point for them but if that dries up they'll have to look elsewhere for MBTs and I don't think they would be willing to pay what France or the UK would charge for theirs. The Germans aren't serious, so that fixes that. Honestly, I think the Poles really want to build internal for the next tank. Now that's easier said than done, but I bet that's the desire. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2016 5:40:40 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Germans aren't serious, so that fixes that. Honestly, I think the Poles really want to build internal for the next tank. Now that's easier said than done, but I bet that's the desire. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
[ If Germany is actually serious about trying to keep the Budeswehr at strength or even expanding it a slight bit (something I'm not sold on yet really) then Leo II exports will probably be on hold for a while, at least; so I can see the Poles being interested in improved M60s...unless they can get a really good deal on M1s. The Poles are serious as a heart attack about their tank arm and they won't buy Russian so they have to look at other countries who build a good tank that they can actually afford more than 12 of. Leos were at a (ridiculously) reasonable price point for them but if that dries up they'll have to look elsewhere for MBTs and I don't think they would be willing to pay what France or the UK would charge for theirs. The Germans aren't serious, so that fixes that. Honestly, I think the Poles really want to build internal for the next tank. Now that's easier said than done, but I bet that's the desire. BAE will get the contract for their "domestic" tank. I guarantee it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2016 5:42:39 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Germans aren't serious, so that fixes that. Honestly, I think the Poles really want to build internal for the next tank. Now that's easier said than done, but I bet that's the desire. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: [ If Germany is actually serious about trying to keep the Budeswehr at strength or even expanding it a slight bit (something I'm not sold on yet really) then Leo II exports will probably be on hold for a while, at least; so I can see the Poles being interested in improved M60s...unless they can get a really good deal on M1s. The Poles are serious as a heart attack about their tank arm and they won't buy Russian so they have to look at other countries who build a good tank that they can actually afford more than 12 of. Leos were at a (ridiculously) reasonable price point for them but if that dries up they'll have to look elsewhere for MBTs and I don't think they would be willing to pay what France or the UK would charge for theirs. The Germans aren't serious, so that fixes that. Honestly, I think the Poles really want to build internal for the next tank. Now that's easier said than done, but I bet that's the desire. According to our Generals we have more Abrams than we need. I don't see why we couldn't give some of our East European allies several discount M1 Abrams. I don't get to make those decisions though.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2016 6:10:47 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm one of very few on this board with ARTEP and gunnery experience in M48A5, M60A3, M1IP and M1A1. That doesn't make me resident expert, but this is a topic I feel I know pretty well. That said, fuck the M60A3. Leave that pile of shit in the past where it's antique ass belongs. Fielding that fucking death trap on the modern battlefield would be a death sentence for the poor fucks shoved into them. Seriously, you'd have to beat my ass unconscious to get me in there with open storage of ammo for the 120. You'd have to padlock the hatches from the outside and I swear the first thing I'd do when I woke up is come hunting the assholes that got me in there. Even if you retrofitted the sophisticated fire detection and suppression system from the M1 into it, it was never designed to carry the ammo for the 120. The M60 has open ready racks and turret floor ammo racks. To modernize this pile of shit into a half-assed modern MBT, you'd need to replace the turret entirely. You cannot safely store the combustible-cased ammo in open racks. It's unconscionable to even consider putting crews in that environment. Beyond that, the M60 series are totally outclassed as MBTs when you consider vehicle profile and automotive abilities. Slow, loud, smoky, thin-skinned and REALLY tall. Tracking displacing M60's on the far side of a berm during force-on-force training was easy as hell. And IMO any country foolish enough to field those shitpiles is putting their national treasury at risk for the mountain of money they're going to have to invest in replacement torsion bars for those fuckers. The M60A3 is dead and buried. It needs to stay that way. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2016 6:20:48 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Same here. It has the classic "tank" silhouette like the Panther. I was stationed at Fort Hood in the early 80s when the 1st Cav and 2nd Armored division were there. When 2AD rolled out to the field they went as a division. Never saw so many tanks in one place at the same time.  Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: That's pretty cool. Always liked the m60a3. Same here. It has the classic "tank" silhouette like the Panther. I was stationed at Fort Hood in the early 80s when the 1st Cav and 2nd Armored division were there. When 2AD rolled out to the field they went as a division. Never saw so many tanks in one place at the same time. I saw a bunch at FT. Knox & always wanted one, but when Doomsday Preppers came out I thought I'd like to be on it with a M60 Tank fuk ur perimeters etc. just come get some.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2016 6:25:27 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm one of very few on this board with ARTEP and gunnery experience in M48A5, M60A3, M1IP and M1A1. That doesn't make me resident expert, but this is a topic I feel I know pretty well. That said, fuck the M60A3. Leave that pile of shit in the past where it's antique ass belongs. Fielding that fucking death trap on the modern battlefield would be a death sentence for the poor fucks shoved into them. Seriously, you'd have to beat my ass unconscious to get me in there with open storage of ammo for the 120. You'd have to padlock the hatches from the outside and I swear the first thing I'd do when I woke up is come hunting the assholes that got me in there. Even if you retrofitted the sophisticated fire detection and suppression system from the M1 into it, it was never designed to carry the ammo for the 120. The M60 has open ready racks and turret floor ammo racks. To modernize this pile of shit into a half-assed modern MBT, you'd need to replace the turret entirely. You cannot safely store the combustible-cased ammo in open racks. It's unconscionable to even consider putting crews in that environment. Beyond that, the M60 series are totally outclassed as MBTs when you consider vehicle profile and automotive abilities. Slow, loud, smoky, thin-skinned and REALLY tall. Tracking displacing M60's on the far side of a berm during force-on-force training was easy as hell. And IMO any country foolish enough to field those shitpiles is putting their national treasury at risk for the mountain of money they're going to have to invest in replacement torsion bars for those fuckers. The M60A3 is dead and buried. It needs to stay that way. But other than that, you like it, right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2016 7:43:23 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm one of very few on this board with ARTEP and gunnery experience in M48A5, M60A3, M1IP and M1A1. That doesn't make me resident expert, but this is a topic I feel I know pretty well. That said, fuck the M60A3. Leave that pile of shit in the past where it's antique ass belongs. Fielding that fucking death trap on the modern battlefield would be a death sentence for the poor fucks shoved into them. Seriously, you'd have to beat my ass unconscious to get me in there with open storage of ammo for the 120. You'd have to padlock the hatches from the outside and I swear the first thing I'd do when I woke up is come hunting the assholes that got me in there. Even if you retrofitted the sophisticated fire detection and suppression system from the M1 into it, it was never designed to carry the ammo for the 120. The M60 has open ready racks and turret floor ammo racks. To modernize this pile of shit into a half-assed modern MBT, you'd need to replace the turret entirely. You cannot safely store the combustible-cased ammo in open racks. It's unconscionable to even consider putting crews in that environment. Beyond that, the M60 series are totally outclassed as MBTs when you consider vehicle profile and automotive abilities. Slow, loud, smoky, thin-skinned and REALLY tall. Tracking displacing M60's on the far side of a berm during force-on-force training was easy as hell. And IMO any country foolish enough to field those shitpiles is putting their national treasury at risk for the mountain of money they're going to have to invest in replacement torsion bars for those fuckers. The M60A3 is dead and buried. It needs to stay that way. This x1,000,000!!! I was a tanker in the Marines in the 1980s on M60A1s....the M60-series are VERY maintenance intensive, the Abrams series required a fraction of the maintenance of the M60s. I still distinctly remember the transition from the M60A1 to the M1A1, it was night and day. Not to mention downsizing from 5 tanks per platoon to only 4 with the M1A1s. I was also an instructor on the AVLBs when the Marine Corps purchased them refurbished in the 1980s. To this day I HATE working on PTO shafts and U-joints. Leave the M60 dead and buried, by the time you re-engineer it, you'd be better off with a refurbished M1A2/M1A1 or Leopard 2. Fuck the M60s. Ever have to change a #1-position torsion bar? How about breaking a rear torsion bar, and having the fragments puncture the fuel tank? OH FUCKING JOY...I'd rather swap out final drives or install a new seal on the driver's escape hatch instead.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2016 7:49:00 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm one of very few on this board with ARTEP and gunnery experience in M48A5, M60A3, M1IP and M1A1. That doesn't make me resident expert, but this is a topic I feel I know pretty well. That said, fuck the M60A3. Leave that pile of shit in the past where it's antique ass belongs. Fielding that fucking death trap on the modern battlefield would be a death sentence for the poor fucks shoved into them. Seriously, you'd have to beat my ass unconscious to get me in there with open storage of ammo for the 120. You'd have to padlock the hatches from the outside and I swear the first thing I'd do when I woke up is come hunting the assholes that got me in there. Even if you retrofitted the sophisticated fire detection and suppression system from the M1 into it, it was never designed to carry the ammo for the 120. The M60 has open ready racks and turret floor ammo racks. To modernize this pile of shit into a half-assed modern MBT, you'd need to replace the turret entirely. You cannot safely store the combustible-cased ammo in open racks. It's unconscionable to even consider putting crews in that environment. Beyond that, the M60 series are totally outclassed as MBTs when you consider vehicle profile and automotive abilities. Slow, loud, smoky, thin-skinned and REALLY tall. Tracking displacing M60's on the far side of a berm during force-on-force training was easy as hell. And IMO any country foolish enough to field those shitpiles is putting their national treasury at risk for the mountain of money they're going to have to invest in replacement torsion bars for those fuckers. The M60A3 is dead and buried. It needs to stay that way. Uh wut? Yea fuck that. No way in hell would I want a hot as fuck aft cap dropping onto a pile of 120 rounds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2016 7:59:09 PM EDT
[#43]
That would be neat.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2016 8:14:40 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ever have to change a #1-position torsion bar? How about breaking a rear torsion bar, and having the fragments puncture the fuel tank? OH FUCKING JOY...I'd rather swap out final drives or install a new seal on the driver's escape hatch instead.... Of course. Any M60-series tanker routinely broke torsion bars. #1 and #6 usually resulted in thrown track. Though any broken torsion bar made that a likely event. We threw track/broke track a LOT more on the 60-series. It really was a revelation going to M1's. It had to have been like when pilots went from props to jets. This is like considering bringing back the Douglas A-1 Skyraider. The problem with the M60A3 isn't that the 105mm main gun is inadequate. Nor is 200 extra horsepower going to bring that platform up to modern standards. The problem is the entire package. You can't put radial tires and a tiny turbocharger on a 1961 Porsche 356b and expect those changes to make it competitive in the 2016 24 Hours of Le Mans. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2016 8:24:34 PM EDT
[#45]
I cut up quite a few of them for recycling.
Pics later |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2016 8:53:38 PM EDT
[#46]
Didn't the M48A3s and M60s suffer crippling losses in the Six Day War?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2016 8:59:32 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Didn't the M48A3s and M60s suffer crippling losses in the Six Day War? Most of those were older iShermans & Centurions...M48-series & M60-series were flown in as replacements. And I believe you are referring to the Yom Kippur War of 1973, where the Egyptians & Syrians launched surprise attacks against the unwary Israelis. The introduction of the Sagger ATGM and new Russian-inspired tactics were the primary reason for the initial losses...they caught the Israelis by surprise, but not for long. Saggers drove the Israelis to develop the Magach upgrades for M48s & M60s, incorporating reactive armor to deflect/defeat chemical-energy AT rounds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2016 9:01:06 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Of course. Any M60-series tanker routinely broke torsion bars. #1 and #6 usually resulted in thrown track. Though any broken torsion bar made that a likely event. We threw track/broke track a LOT more on the 60-series. It really was a revelation going to M1's. It had to have been like when pilots went from props to jets. This is like considering bringing back the Douglas A-1 Skyraider. The problem with the M60A3 isn't that the 105mm main gun is inadequate. Nor is 200 extra horsepower going to bring that platform up to modern standards. The problem is the entire package. You can't put radial tires and a tiny turbocharger on a 1961 Porsche 356b and expect those changes to make it competitive in the 2016 24 Hours of Le Mans. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Ever have to change a #1-position torsion bar? How about breaking a rear torsion bar, and having the fragments puncture the fuel tank? OH FUCKING JOY...I'd rather swap out final drives or install a new seal on the driver's escape hatch instead.... Of course. Any M60-series tanker routinely broke torsion bars. #1 and #6 usually resulted in thrown track. Though any broken torsion bar made that a likely event. We threw track/broke track a LOT more on the 60-series. It really was a revelation going to M1's. It had to have been like when pilots went from props to jets. This is like considering bringing back the Douglas A-1 Skyraider. The problem with the M60A3 isn't that the 105mm main gun is inadequate. Nor is 200 extra horsepower going to bring that platform up to modern standards. The problem is the entire package. You can't put radial tires and a tiny turbocharger on a 1961 Porsche 356b and expect those changes to make it competitive in the 2016 24 Hours of Le Mans. Once again Sir, I bow to you. You are absolutely correct. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2016 9:02:58 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Of course. Any M60-series tanker routinely broke torsion bars. #1 and #6 usually resulted in thrown track. Though any broken torsion bar made that a likely event. We threw track/broke track a LOT more on the 60-series. It really was a revelation going to M1's. It had to have been like when pilots went from props to jets. This is like considering bringing back the Douglas A-1 Skyraider. The problem with the M60A3 isn't that the 105mm main gun is inadequate. Nor is 200 extra horsepower going to bring that platform up to modern standards. The problem is the entire package. You can't put radial tires and a tiny turbocharger on a 1961 Porsche 356b and expect those changes to make it competitive in the 2016 24 Hours of Le Mans. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Ever have to change a #1-position torsion bar? How about breaking a rear torsion bar, and having the fragments puncture the fuel tank? OH FUCKING JOY...I'd rather swap out final drives or install a new seal on the driver's escape hatch instead.... Of course. Any M60-series tanker routinely broke torsion bars. #1 and #6 usually resulted in thrown track. Though any broken torsion bar made that a likely event. We threw track/broke track a LOT more on the 60-series. It really was a revelation going to M1's. It had to have been like when pilots went from props to jets. This is like considering bringing back the Douglas A-1 Skyraider. The problem with the M60A3 isn't that the 105mm main gun is inadequate. Nor is 200 extra horsepower going to bring that platform up to modern standards. The problem is the entire package. You can't put radial tires and a tiny turbocharger on a 1961 Porsche 356b and expect those changes to make it competitive in the 2016 24 Hours of Le Mans. Did someone say thrown track? I broke the shit out of it. Hohenfels, circa 1980.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2016 9:15:32 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Did someone say thrown track? I broke the shit out of it.
Hohenfels, circa 1980. http://www.narruc.net/Public/pix/m60a1.jpg You sure did!
Definitely 1980 as no smoke dischargers nor MILES gear to accompany the Hoffmann device.... Ever attach a length of comm wire to the bare wire ends of the Hoffmann charges, then connect to a 9-volt battery? Makes for an AWESOME flash-bang! We used to do that to flush out cornered OPFOR guys....the only fun involving MILES gear! |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
