User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/1/2007 8:45:46 PM EDT
[#1]
I asked this question awhile back
actually it was how did the USMC M60s do in the first gulf war the answer from alot of articles sited very well against T-72 and T-62 but it was chalked up to crews more than machine here's a interesting link from google not sure if it is all bullshit or not www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/2-13432.aspx |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2007 8:50:55 PM EDT
[#2]
first off, I know dick about tanks.
but I think our guys would have kicked ass in an M4 Sherman. It's all in the training of our men (quality gear augments it) IMHO |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2007 8:55:29 PM EDT
[#3]
M60 was marginal equal, the sightning system of the A3 was superior to the early M1's when they came out.
T-72s? Fair match given crews and technology. T-80s? Disadvantage. It was no where near the uber tank that the M-1 was. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2007 8:55:59 PM EDT
[#4]
whatever dude. sherman tanks against T80s? okay |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2007 8:57:04 PM EDT
[#5]
Ask the San Diego PD.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2007 8:57:41 PM EDT
[#6]
hell bolt cutters and a handgun worked for them |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2007 8:58:34 PM EDT
[#7]
Remember that the M-60 was produced in the '60s to replace the M-48 Pattons. The Soviets were scared of it as their T-54/55 would be hard pressed to take on the M-60. When the T-72 came out with its smooth bore 125 mm, it was a shocker to us and our fears weren't assuaged until the Israelis demonstrated how to knock them out. However, by the time the T-72 was introduced, we were already working on a replacement for the M-60.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2007 8:59:22 PM EDT
[#8]
Thats a stretch... 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2007 9:02:06 PM EDT
[#9]
I'm glad we got the M1.
That was the Pentagon's way of saying the M60 was no match for the five thousand T-62/T-64/T-72s the Russians had in Germany. It was much better than the Soviet tanks, but not better enough. A Soviet Tank Army had three to five tank divisions, each division with three tank regiments and a BMP regiment, along with artillery. Each regiment had three tank battalions and a BMP battalion, along with artillery. Each battalion had 30 T-72s and a company of BMPs, along with artillery. At the height of the Cold War the Russians had a Tank Army, a Combined Arms Army and an Air Army, in East Germany. It was simply a matter of sending it all through the Fulda Gap. Even if you got 90% of it, there would still be enough to go to the French border, who would simply surrender. There was another Tank Army, Combined Arms Army and Air Army in Eastern Europe ready to move forward. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2007 9:02:33 PM EDT
[#10]
seriously though maybe a firefly one isn't that what Israelis used in the 6 day war ? EDIT never mind that was a Super Sherman Wiki I thought the brits gave/left some fireflys to Israel |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2007 9:03:34 PM EDT
[#11]
Perspective- It was better than the M48's our unit had when I went in.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2007 9:04:59 PM EDT
[#12]
Those Israeli Super Shermans would have had an outside chance, at least. Still, wouldn't want to bet on that fight, great training or not... |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2007 9:05:01 PM EDT
[#13]
The Sherman's gun is just as effective as throwing rocks at the Russian tanks especially the 75mm and 76mm guns, better hope your in one of those 17 pounder equipped tanks. I don't think I even need to address the woefull armor and instant combustibility issues neither. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2007 9:08:31 PM EDT
[#14]
The Shermans wouldn't last 5 minutes against the T-55 yet alone the T-72. Now, if it was armed with that French 105, it could take on a T-55. The Israelis did with their SuperShermans. Against the T-72 with chobam armor, oops!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2007 9:09:33 PM EDT
[#15]
You're right. You don't know much about tanks. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2007 9:11:47 PM EDT
[#16]
The M60 A3 was just about as accurate as the M1 (standing still), and had the same gun tube. It would have stood up well to the T72 and probably T80.
It had a decent thermal sight, and was pretty reliable mechanically. The biggest advantage in the M1 was superb shoot on the move stabilization A lot would depend on what kind of battle you were fighting. From a "hull down" position, defending against the red hordes, the M60 would have made a pretty good account for itself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2007 9:14:54 PM EDT
[#17]
T-72 doesn't have Chobham. Only the Brits and us, to the best of my knowledge. Israeli M-50(75mm)/M-51(105mm) did successfully engage T-55s and T-62s during the Yom Kippur War, but they took some heavy losses. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2007 9:17:10 PM EDT
[#18]
So is the 120mm a major upgrade from the 105mm?????
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2007 9:17:54 PM EDT
[#19]
I think the M60 and friends would have performed superbly, with staggering kill ratios. They would have simply been over-run by sheer numbers. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2007 9:20:05 PM EDT
[#20]
Yup, in Iraq they were getting one-shot kills at 2.5 miles. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2007 9:52:47 PM EDT
[#21]
With the benefit of hindsight, M60 wasn't as capable a tank vs the Great Soviet Horde as was advertised at the time. The 105mm gun was of dubious capability against T-72 until the DU rounds started appearing in the 1980s, and the 115mm of T-62 could knock it out, let alone the 125mm of T-72. There was a reason that the Soviets put their good stuff up North, where it would be facing the British who had much tougher tanks and had discarded the 105mm for a 120mm by the time the US thought about upgrading from 90mm to 105. In terms of the armor/mobility balance, it was something of a jack of all trades: It wasn't as light or nimble as Leopard 1 or AMX-30, but it turned out it couldn't really take any punishment from Red weaponries that the lighter tanks couldn't, without achieving the levels of armour that the British had. This wasn't known at the time, though. It also had a stupidly high profile, particularly with that cupola up top. M60A2 was an interesting try, it just didn't work out. Very good attempt though. Only one flaw: The gun!
On the plus sides, the tank was liveable and reliable, and relatively comfortable. When they upgraded to the TTS version, they got a sight which wasn't beaten in US service until the M1A2/M1A1 AIM (Other, non-tank vehicles got better ones mind). Ultimately, though, it was a development of a WWII tank which had just been evolved and evolved. NTM |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2007 9:56:57 PM EDT
[#22]
I remember reading somewhere that the M60 suspension system was prone to frequent breakdowns. Was this a problem with the early variants?
Galland |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2007 9:59:25 PM EDT
[#23]
I was an M1 Tanker, I never crewed an M60. But we did have them when I went in. I was told it was a good defensive tank.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2007 10:03:40 PM EDT
[#24]
The torsion bars could snap, and the road wheel bearings would get mud in them and literally burn out. The M1 was an improvement in that regard. I think any land based all terrain 40-60 ton vehicle is going to present some mx headaches though. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2007 10:06:36 PM EDT
[#25]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2007 10:22:16 PM EDT
[#26]
In a static defensive position, the 105 had great accuracy and the rate of fire was far higher than that of any of the soviet tanks. The soviets would have been shooting on the move and mostly not hitting anything. Depending on the time frame, it would have faced T-62s and T-54/55, these it could have handled. T-64s and T-72s had much better frontal armor and would have been difficult to kill with the 105mm anti-tank rounds of the day. The Iraqi "export model" T-72s did not have the same level of armor protection as the domestic models. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2007 10:48:40 PM EDT
[#27]
This was a really good thread, which had some really cool responses.
It confirmed what I suspected about the M60 and variants; high profile, under-gunned until later, excellent against teh Commiez but would have been undone by the sheer number of targets, great defensive platform. I heard the A3 was a pretty solid piece. Anybody still driving those old buzzards? I will never forget the first time I saw one driving by us in Basic, doing rifle drills - the Drill Sergeant stopped giving instruction and we all just stared in wonder as the ground shook beneath our feet, and the squealing and roaring overwhelmed us. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2007 11:46:03 PM EDT
[#28]
Taiwan operates about 300 A3s, last I heard, they also have some conversions designated CM11 and CM12.
Some thumbnails, just because you can't have a tank thread without pictures.         |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2007 12:31:37 AM EDT
[#29]
what did we do with the M60s when they were retired? Export? Scrap? An AMARC type facility?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2007 12:38:45 AM EDT
[#30]
I know a quite a few ended up in Yakima Training Centers Impact Area, I saw one "disappear" after taking a direct hit by a Mk84 2000lb bomb.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2007 12:44:58 AM EDT
[#31]
They also dumped a bunch in the drink off the Florida Keys. Aparently, building "fishy condos" out of old armor is a "practical" thing to do.
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2007 12:50:48 AM EDT
[#32]
I seem to remmember a bunch of them being put into a huge fenced off area just before Range Control, They were being sent to Canada I thought....( Some guys from the Mort. Plt were grabbing lights out of them to put into our 113's) Could be wrong about them going off to Canada though. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2007 12:57:14 AM EDT
[#33]
Damn, there was a bunch at range control back in 98, us EOD guys raided them and took all the blasting machines out of them. Everyone in the unit got one as a souvenir. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2007 12:58:25 AM EDT
[#34]
Heck, I remember the M60s driving over us in Infantry Basic |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2007 1:02:44 AM EDT
[#35]
That is about the right time frame, We took out all the lights from inside and put them in to our Humvees, 113's 577's. Did not take too long before other guys figured out where we got all of the parts for the cool Mod's to our rides and started doing the same. 
|
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2007 1:10:25 AM EDT
[#36]
My unit in Korea had A3's and I always thought is was a very capable tank. Laser rangefinder, gun stabilization, etc. The real problem as far as "modern" tanks go was the armor was no match for modern anti-tank weapons(this is why the Marines bolted applique armor all over theirs) and it had a hell of a tall target profile. I worked on A1's and A3's in the Army and really liked them.....still do.
The M1A2 is uber-cool tho. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2007 1:17:17 AM EDT
[#37]
The M-60 was probably 'on par' with the original T-72... It lacked shoot-on-the-move capability, had a few 'bad idea' designs (commander's cupola that killed the TC when hit - see Israeli use of the M-60), and so on... Good for it's time, but totally obsolete by the time the USMC took them to ODS... The Marines did as well as they did in ODS not because of the M60, but in spite of it - better training & tactics won the day... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2007 1:25:02 AM EDT
[#38]
Yep... Mainly because smooth-bore barrels work better for anti-armor rounds (both HEAT and APFSDS)... You got higher velocity for the APFSDS, and no spin meant better effects from HEAT hits.... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2007 4:00:10 AM EDT
[#39]
What a waste. They should sell them through CMP. |
|||
|
|
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.
