M-60 vs. Soviet Tanks

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2

Enzo RE:M-60 vs. Soviet Tanks 4/27/2005 4:28:45 AM

There are some guys that frequent this site that have spent some time in M-60's, so they'll give you a much better answer. But IIRC, the Marines fielded M-60's during the Gulf War and had a pretty good action against some tanks. not sure if they were T-55's or 62's or whatever, I'll try to look around for some links about that action if you're interested.

Quote Reply

boris the romanian RE:M-60 vs. Soviet Tanks 4/27/2005 5:11:01 AM

The only M-60 variant to have any significant advantages over contemporary Soviet models is the M-60A3. It had a better FCS and the best thermal sight of its day. But even the A3 would have been very hard pressed against the Soviet T-80, T-72, T-64, and even T-62 and T-55/54. The first three Soviet tanks all had much better mobility and armoured protection, especially the T-80B/BV and T-72A/B, and firepower (while the L-7 was more accurate at range, under 2000m 2A26/46 could more than hold its own and fired much more powerful (and, surprisingly, very accurate) HEAT rounds. APFSDS ammunition was acceptable (DU 3BM-29/32 could punch through more than 500mm at 2000m, more than enought to go through two M-60s in much the same way as M-829A1 went through two T-72s). Still, M-60A3 is the second best Western tank of its generation (after Chieftain), having better armour than Leopard 1, and all were far superior to AMX-30.

Quote Reply

Enzo RE:M-60 vs. Soviet Tanks 4/27/2005 7:25:28 AM

There you go. i'm pretty sure the Marines were fielding the M-60A3's during the Gulf War. If not, I'm sure you'll know about it soon. I'm also pretty sure there were no T-80 varients there. So I hope boris answered any particular questions for ya slow :)

Quote Reply

boris the romanian RE:M-60 vs. Soviet Tanks 4/27/2005 8:54:45 AM

"There you go. i'm pretty sure the Marines were fielding the M-60A3's during the Gulf War. If not, I'm sure you'll know about it soon. I'm also pretty sure there were no T-80 varients there. So I hope boris answered any particular questions for ya slow :) " Yep, they were M-60A3s. And there were no T-80 variants in Iraq. But I only answered this from a purely technical consideration, for any Iraqi tank was perfectly capable of destroying an M-60A3's frontal projection at ranges in excess of 1500m (2000m+ if you're referring to D-81-armed tanks, i.e. T-72)

Quote Reply

FSV RE:M-60 vs. Soviet Tanks 4/27/2005 5:48:00 PM

During the Gulf War the Corps fielded M-60A1's (1st, 3rd, 4th & 5th Tk Bn's) and 2nd Tk Bn with M1A1's. Against the T-62's the M-60's were the better tank. Beter Fire Control System (FSC), rate-of-fire, cross country mobility, & reliabiliy. Due to ammo quality, the 105mm gun was better at ranges greater than 2,000 meters. Reguardless of range, a hit by the 115mm would hurt if not kill you. Tho the T-64, 72, & 80's had/have beter FSC's, their rate-of-fire, cross country mobility, & reliabiliy were not as good as the M-60's.

Quote Reply

Galderio RE:M-60 vs. Soviet Tanks 4/27/2005 5:57:57 PM

"cross country mobility, & reliabiliy were not as good as the M-60's". Why if the m-60 weigths more and russian tanks have larger tracks and more powerfull engines?

Quote Reply

MadRat Torque and hardened gears (nt) 4/28/2005 3:25:48 AM

Quote Reply

RetiredCdnTanker RE:M-60 vs. Soviet Tanks 4/28/2005 8:49:36 AM

I must admit that this is the first time I have ever heard anyone say anything good about the M60's mobility. The M60 probably had the worst mobility of any second generation tanks I had the opportunity to experience. Almost as bad as the AMX 30. The transmission really did a poor job, just not enough gears! The M60 was, basically, a product improved M48. It was originally designed as an "interim" tank, to bridge the gap between the M48 and the future tank. Obsolete when fielded, it was not a very good MBT, with poor mobility, a "cheap fix" stab system, and a barely adequate FCS. The M60A1 addressed some of the shortcomings, but the tank only started to have an adequate FCS after its replacement was fielded.

Quote Reply

FSV RE:M-60 vs. Soviet Tanks 4/28/2005 8:49:19 PM

In the late '70's I got to crew a T-62 for 3 days at Ft. Knox. Going cross country the T-62 gives a very rough ride. It's like being in the back of an empty 5 ton, with a newbe driver, going cross country. This makes it very hard for the crew to preform their duties. It also wears a crew out quickly. Granted the 48's & 60's were not gazelles at maneuvering. But, in comparison to the T-72 & earlier types, the M-60A1 was the better vehicle.

Quote Reply

slowball RE:M-60 vs. Soviet Tanks 4/28/2005 10:39:26 PM

Interesting stuff....keep it coming. Seems like mixed opinions on the early M-60. I thought the AMX-30 was supposed to emphasize mobility over armor? or did it just not do a good job at what it was designed to do?

Quote Reply

FSV RE:M-60 vs. Soviet Tanks 4/29/2005 6:01:38 AM

The AMX-30's design priorities were Firepower, Mobility, Protection. It weighed 36 metric tons. It had a 720 bhp engine, 5 forward / 1 reverse gear trans. & a speed of 56 kph. It had a 105mm rifled cannon. The Leopard-1 had the same design priorites as the AMX-30. The Leopard weighed 42.2 metric tons. It had a 830 bhp engine, 4 forward / 1 reverse gear trans. & a speed of 65 kph. It had a 105mm rifled cannon. The Chieftain Mk3 design priorities were Firepower, Protection, Mobility. It weighed 52.3 metric tons. It had a 650 bhp engine, & a speed of 40 kph. It had a 120mm rifled cannon. The M-60A1's design priorities were Firepower, Protection, Mobility. It weighed 40 metric tons. It had a 750 bhp engine, 2 forward / 1 reverse gear trans. & a speed of 48 kph. It had a 105mm rifled cannon. All of the data above is from the Jane's '74-'75 Weapons Systems book. The T-62A's design priorities were Firepower, Mobility, Protection. It weighed 36 tons. It had a 580 bhp engine, 5 forward / 1 reverse gear manual trans. & a speed of 45.5 kph. It had a 115mm smooth bore cannon. The T-62A's info is from the Operator's Manual, prepared by Delta Company, 519th Military Intelligence Battalion. The Chieftain had the most armor & the best ballistically shaped front hull & turret. While the M-60A1 had more armor, the Leopard had less turret front overhang. The AMX-30 had the least armor & the worst ballistically shaped turret. The T-62A's APFSDS-T projectile had the best penetration. But the Israelis reported that the projectiles would brake in half & fail to penetrate if they struck at angles of 35-40 degrees or less. Due to ammo quality control problems and the FCS accuracy dropped of rapidly after 1,500 meters. There was a HEAT round but there was accuracy problems because all the 'pop-out' fins sometime didn't 'pop-out' at the same time. The 115mm was slow to load due to the cramped turret & the fact that only 2 rds traversed with the turret. The rest had to be pulled from the hull. The tankers out there will love the small diameter turret deck. The loader had 1 foot on the turret deck & the other foot on the hull deck. The Chieftain's 120mm APDS-T was a real tank killer. But it had a slow rate of fire, due to the 2 piece ammo. And a 0.50in cal. spotting rifle was used for ranging. The 120mm also had a HEP-T round that could ruin your day. The 105mm used on both the Leopard & M-60A1 was probably the best (a version of the British L7 cannon). It had APDS-T, HEAT-T & HEP-T for killing armor. It had a high rate of fire & a good hit probability out to 2,500 meters. It did kill the T-62A's at 3,000+ meters. The 105mm on the AMX-30 was the worst. It had only a HEAT-T round for anti-armor. This round had far less penetrating ability than the HEAT-T round used in the L7 variants. The outer projectile body rotated due to the rifling and a inner body (with the shaped charge) was mounted in ball bearings to reduce spining.

Quote Reply

MikkoLn RE:M-60 vs. Soviet Tanks 4/29/2005 7:17:45 AM

Hi FSV, Actually T72 is in my opinion relatively comfortable vehicle to ride with by it's traction, especially so if compared with other era (soviet) vehicles. It's really on it's best within moderate to high speeds demonstrating quite generous acceleration and ample power supply. It might not have been the most agile tank (steering/reverse can be argued to have some shortcomings) but it certainly was very mobile and responsible one. The V46 engine it used was relatively noted piece for it's capabilities. I haven't been riding with T62, but as I believe and recall it used V2/55 (or derivative) type engines also used earlier on that were not only significantly underpowered compared to V46 but also notoriously non-smooth and crude in their running, which might at least somewhat explain your hard feelings for the rough ride. So I don't really believe that there are a real choice wheather to go with T72 or M60 as far as mobility is considered...

Quote Reply

ShallowThinker1 RE:M-60 vs. Soviet Tanks 4/29/2005 8:42:31 AM

FSV, If you were a tanker during the late 70's to mid 80's and had the luck and luxury of never having to go into battle in your MBT, of all the tanks fielded in those times the best one to crew was the M60 series. By crew comfort standards it was a danged Cadillac. As for fighting a real war, I can't say. I knew that if it happened I wanted to fight from a good defilade position and have my withdrawal routes mapped out real good. But heck, that's how we trained and, from the info we had at the time, that seemed about the best of the bad choices available ;)

Quote Reply

ShallowThinker1 RE:M-60 vs. Soviet Tanks 4/29/2005 8:56:28 AM

FSV, Your description of the T-62 is of a vehicle that takes hunks of skin and even some bone here and there as payment from its crew. Sounds like an exhausting vehicle to live with. The idea of needing to ride one foot in hull space and another in turret space sounds downright frightening. And having to rotate the turret into position to extract ammo every two rounds is not something that maximizes mobility and firepower. Imagine trying to get those next two rounds moved from storage to ready-rack while that 36 ton beast made of nuttin' but iron is bouncing cross-country. I bet loaders took a real beating in that sucker. There are some things that folks don't generally realize about tanks. Even in the "old days" of the tanks we're talking about here, they moved going cross country. You'd have a difficult time finding anything but top of the line racing vehicles that can move cross-country as rapidly as an MBT. The problem is being inside the beast when it's doing it cross-country thing. If you're in the turret is time to hang on and make sure your feet and hands are in good spots. There are no soft spots on a tank. Put a hand or foot or any other body part in the wrong place at the wrong time (and time can be a small fraction of a second) and you will regret and just may lose the body part.

Quote Reply

ShallowThinker1 RE:M-60 vs. Soviet Tanks 4/29/2005 8:59:28 AM

Mikkoln, Tank drivers live a life of luxury. It is the turret crew that gets tossed around. This was especially true of the M60 which was an almost preposterously tall tank.

Quote Reply

Pages: 1 2

	News As History - August 29, 2008
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us