Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armor Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: M-60 vs. Soviet Tanks
slowball    4/27/2005 4:18:50 AM
How would the M-60 have fared against the Soviet tanks of its day (T-62/T-64/T-72) in typical European terrain? While it's universally accepted that the latest generation of western MBT are far and away superior to their soviet counterparts, not much is said about the previous generation of western tanks. How did they compare?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4   NEXT
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
nt
 
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
1 2 3 4   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics