User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/20/2013 7:42:04 PM EDT
[#1]
Don't know, but I recall talking with an Israeli guy who had been in their army in the 1970s, who said the M60 caught fire a lot when it got hit, so they developed the front-engined Merkava.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2013 7:50:51 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted:
Seems like the T55 could be produced fast so the Russians had that going for them but as far as head to head what was a better tank? That depends on the generation of M60.. The M60A3 for the win over the T55 ... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2013 7:53:27 PM EDT
[#3]
Quoted: Quoted: Seems like the T55 could be produced fast so the Russians had that going for them but as far as head to head what was a better tank? That depends on the generation of M60.. The M60A3 for the win over the T55 ... Yah but a T-72 would win over an M-60A3 |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2013 7:54:18 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Seems like the T55 could be produced fast so the Russians had that going for them but as far as head to head what was a better tank? That depends on the generation of M60.. The M60A3 for the win over the T55 ... Yah but a T-72 would win over an M-60A3 M-60's did pretty well when the Marines used them during Desert Storm. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2013 7:55:32 PM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Seems like the T55 could be produced fast so the Russians had that going for them but as far as head to head what was a better tank? That depends on the generation of M60.. The M60A3 for the win over the T55 ... Yah but a T-72 would win over an M-60A3 Tell that to the Iraqis... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2013 7:56:23 PM EDT
[#6]
after the reunification of Germany, it was discovered that the 105mm gun of the M60 could not penetrate the front armor of E. German T-72's
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2013 7:57:19 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Seems like the T55 could be produced fast so the Russians had that going for them but as far as head to head what was a better tank? That depends on the generation of M60.. The M60A3 for the win over the T55 ... Yah but a T-72 would win over an M-60A3 M-60's did pretty well when the Marines used them during Desert Storm. The Israelis used the M60A1 to good effect against Syrian T-72s as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2013 8:01:41 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Seems like the T55 could be produced fast so the Russians had that going for them but as far as head to head what was a better tank? That depends on the generation of M60.. The M60A3 for the win over the T55 ... Yah but a T-72 would win over an M-60A3 M-60's did pretty well when the Marines used them during Desert Storm. I would consider an A3 pretty much the equal of a T-72. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2013 8:03:16 PM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Seems like the T55 could be produced fast so the Russians had that going for them but as far as head to head what was a better tank? That depends on the generation of M60.. The M60A3 for the win over the T55 ... Yah but a T-72 would win over an M-60A3 M-60's did pretty well when the Marines used them during Desert Storm. I would consider an A3 pretty much the equal of a T-72. The M60A3 TTS was the equal of the T72 . The M60A1 RISE was also capable of holding its own .. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2013 8:09:27 PM EDT
[#10]
I suspect the latter 72s had better Armor and the 60 had a better FCS and could fight at night and hit from much further away..
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2013 8:11:20 PM EDT
[#11]
M60 from the get go. It was the M48 that would catch fire when it had the gasoline engine. Your Israeli buddy is full of shit.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2013 8:18:13 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
I suspect the latter 72s had better Armor and the 60 had a better FCS and could fight at night and hit from much further away.. Oh yes absolutely the M60A3 TTS was very advanced , the thermal imaging at least for a few years was better than the thermal imaging that was initially used on the M1 when it was first deployed. plus there was continual improvements and up armor programs. I think the Israeli Magach 6 and 7 tanks are M60 variants which were seriously upgraded. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2013 8:25:33 PM EDT
[#13]
First, the important thing to know is that tactics trump the actual specifications or abilities of the tank, period. We've found this out time and time again, as arguably superior tanks have lost against inferiors, simply because the lesser tank had better tankers.
Having said that, it all depends on the model. What year are we talking about? The T-54 was built about 15 years before the M60, and had a lot of variations, just like the Patton. If they're the same, I'd take the Patton. But as others have mentioned, there are far more modern Soviet tanks that would fare much better against an M-60, like the T-72 which is on par with it. But do note that the Soviets had an even better tank (as the T-72 was inferior to some others they had) in the T-64. The T-64 was arguably superior to the M-60 in every way: Three times the armor, a better gun, and faster. I don't think the Patton would stack up to it very well. That is why you never hear much about the tank - the Soviets never exported it to Warsaw Pact countries, and rather sent monkey models of the T-72 out of country. So: M-60 > T-54/55 M-60 = T-72 M-60 < T-64
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2013 8:26:16 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: M60 from the get go. It was the M48 that would catch fire when it had the gasoline engine. Your Israeli buddy is full of shit. Or mistaken the M60 for the M48 M60 is still a great tank |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2013 8:29:52 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
Don't know, but I recall talking with an Israeli guy who had been in their army in the 1970s, who said the M60 caught fire a lot when it got hit, so they developed the front-engined Merkava. From my understanding, the point of putting the engine in front on the Merkava was that it was aid in crew survivability - not anything related to catching fire. They just wanted a bit more metal up front so that if the tank was disabled, the crew could still survive. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2013 8:32:12 PM EDT
[#16]
OP you never cease to amaze me.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2013 8:33:05 PM EDT
[#17]
Tank warfare is really a question of logistics........just sayin.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2013 8:35:22 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
First, the important thing to know is that tactics trump the actual specifications or abilities of the tank, period. We've found this out time and time again, as arguably superior tanks have lost against inferiors, simply because the lesser tank had better tankers. Having said that, it all depends on the model. What year are we talking about? The T-54 was built about 15 years before the M60, and had a lot of variations, just like the Patton. If they're the same, I'd take the Patton. But as others have mentioned, there are far more modern Soviet tanks that would fare much better against an M-60, like the T-72 which is on par with it. But do note that the Soviets had an even better tank (as the T-72 was inferior to some others they had) in the T-64. The T-64 was arguably superior to the M-60 in every way: Three times the armor, a better gun, and faster. I don't think the Patton would stack up to it very well. That is why you never hear much about the tank - the Soviets never exported it to Warsaw Pact countries, and rather sent monkey models of the T-72 out of country. So: M-60 > T-54/55 M-60 = T-72 M-60 < T-64 They only produced a few thousand T64 tanks also, it ended up being a vastly more expensive tank to produce for the Soviets. It was the basis for the T80 though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2013 8:36:24 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
Tank warfare is really a question of logistics........just sayin. 15000 M60 tanks qualifies I think... That was the number produced over its service life. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2013 8:38:26 PM EDT
[#20]
There are a lot of reasons that the Merkava is built the way it is. Putting the engine at the front had nothing to do with stopping the merkava from catching fire.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2013 8:39:29 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted: Quoted: First, the important thing to know is that tactics trump the actual specifications or abilities of the tank, period. We've found this out time and time again, as arguably superior tanks have lost against inferiors, simply because the lesser tank had better tankers. Having said that, it all depends on the model. What year are we talking about? The T-54 was built about 15 years before the M60, and had a lot of variations, just like the Patton. If they're the same, I'd take the Patton. But as others have mentioned, there are far more modern Soviet tanks that would fare much better against an M-60, like the T-72 which is on par with it. But do note that the Soviets had an even better tank (as the T-72 was inferior to some others they had) in the T-64. The T-64 was arguably superior to the M-60 in every way: Three times the armor, a better gun, and faster. I don't think the Patton would stack up to it very well. That is why you never hear much about the tank - the Soviets never exported it to Warsaw Pact countries, and rather sent monkey models of the T-72 out of country. So: M-60 > T-54/55 M-60 = T-72 M-60 < T-64 They only produced a few thousand T64 tanks also, it ended up being a vastly more expensive tank to produce for the Soviets. It was the basis for the T80 though. Sure, but that doesn't change it being a better tank, does it? According to Wikipedia, they produced over 10,000 of them. Of course, that doesn't compare to the 55 or 72, but they still made quite a few of them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2013 8:40:38 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted: Quoted: Tank warfare is really a question of logistics........just sayin. 15000 M60 tanks qualifies I think... That was the number produced over its service life. I didn't realize that they made so few...Somewhere around 100,000 T-54/55s were manufactured. I wonder how many tanks NATO had vs. the Warsaw Pact when the M60 was in its prime? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2013 8:42:08 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Seems like the T55 could be produced fast so the Russians had that going for them but as far as head to head what was a better tank? That depends on the generation of M60.. The M60A3 for the win over the T55 ... Yah but a T-72 would win over an M-60A3 M-60's did pretty well when the Marines used them during Desert Storm. If I remember hearing correctly most the of T-72s had barrels that had long past their service life during the iran-iraq war. Also Arab training wasn't exactly up to par with even the soviets. I bet well trained US tank crews in T-72s could mop the floor with iraqi's in M1 abrams. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2013 8:44:08 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Tank warfare is really a question of logistics........just sayin. 15000 M60 tanks qualifies I think... That was the number produced over its service life. I didn't realize that they made so few...Somewhere around 100,000 T-54/55s were manufactured. I wonder how many tanks NATO had vs. the Warsaw Pact when the M60 was in its prime? The Soviets had numerical superiority however we had better trained crews , The West Germans and The British absolutely had excellent tankers and tanks, and we also were relying on Tow Scout and other tank killing units. Plus we had the A10 and everyone got to see how well it actually works later on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2013 8:49:39 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Tank warfare is really a question of logistics........just sayin. 15000 M60 tanks qualifies I think... That was the number produced over its service life. I didn't realize that they made so few...Somewhere around 100,000 T-54/55s were manufactured. I wonder how many tanks NATO had vs. the Warsaw Pact when the M60 was in its prime? The Soviets had numerical superiority however we had better trained crews , The West Germans and The British absolutely had excellent tankers and tanks, and we also were relying on Tow Scout and other tank killing units. Plus we had the A10 and everyone got to see how well it actually works later on. Oh, and throw in the T-80's performance during Grozny, and you may get an idea of how they'd perform in the field. I think that you have a scenario similar to Allies and Nazis during and after Normandy - they had advantages in head-to-head armor battles, but we brought much better combined arms doctrine which decimated them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2013 8:51:52 PM EDT
[#26]
As I understood the problem, The M-60 had issues with the hydraulic fluid being flammable.
If a a hit sprung the system and the high pressure would spray a mist of flammable hydro fluid inside the tank... EDITED - Found back up for that in Wikipedia under Magach (Israeli Patton M-60) "When the Yom Kippur War broke out, Israel had a total of 540 M48A3 (with 105mm gun) and M60A1 tanks.[1][2] During the war, the tanks suffered heavy losses. The location of flammable hydraulic fluid at the front of the turret was discovered to be a severe vulnerability. After the war Israel had only about 200 M48A3 and M60A1 tanks, after a large number of Israeli tanks were destroyed or terminally hit during the war, mostly in the Sinai front in fighting against the Egyptian army.[1] The war's losses were replaced with new M48A5 (Magach 5) and M60 (Magach 6) during the 1970s. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2013 8:55:08 PM EDT
[#27]
In the 1972 Easter offensive in Vietnam, ARVN M48's took care of NVN T-55's using better tactics and their 90mm's which had better penetration than the 100 mm.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2013 9:14:41 PM EDT
[#28]
Dude...Bradley/LAV 25mm can pop a T-72/62/55.
M60A3TTS vs T-72. Assuming the crews of either-are trained and proficient: Main gun-105mm/M68 outclasses the 125 with APFSDS-T. Survivability-T-72 is a fire wating to happen. Lower profile goes to the T-72, the M60A3 is a tall tank. Ergonomics, optics, thermals, all in the M60A3 favor. Speed and mobility about the same. Unless I was in a stand up fight against 'Western' style top tier tanks ('ya know-parkerized under the bore evacuator...) like Leopard 2A5 or the like...M60A3TTS is still a viable tank more than capable of dispatching Ivan cookers with ease. Plus you don't need to be a 5'6" Krasnovian to fit in one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 2:27:54 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
after the reunification of Germany, it was discovered that the 105mm gun of the M60 could not penetrate the front armor of E. German T-72's With German Made Ammo, not the stuff we were buying from Honeywell.... Big difference With Tank cannons its all about the Ammunition. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 2:31:15 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Seems like the T55 could be produced fast so the Russians had that going for them but as far as head to head what was a better tank? That depends on the generation of M60.. The M60A3 for the win over the T55 ... Yah but a T-72 would win over an M-60A3 M-60's did pretty well when the Marines used them during Desert Storm. I would consider an A3 pretty much the equal of a T-72. Marine M60s were M60A1 RISE |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 2:45:18 PM EDT
[#31]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 2:49:33 PM EDT
[#32]
A M60 would take a giant shit on a T-55 just about every time they'd meet each other in 1 vs 1.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 3:15:32 PM EDT
[#33]
Tactics, training, crew and support matter more than anything.
That said, main battle tanks are going to go the way of battleships. Tank to tank battles will probably never happen again, too hard to even stage before air power takes them out. If the choppers don't get them, the tank killers will, if the drones don't get them the hand held missles will. They've become land based dreadnoughts, at least if they ever go up against a modern foe again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 3:21:38 PM EDT
[#34]
Depends on RNG, if the tanker is using gold, and if he pens for zero damage.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 3:24:52 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
Depends on RNG, if the tanker is using gold, and if he pens for zero damage. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 3:27:57 PM EDT
[#36]
As said above, ammo is a huge issue with Tanks. The 105 is a great gun with the right Ammo.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 3:33:11 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Depends on RNG, if the tanker is using gold, and if he pens for zero damage. You know you love it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 3:34:05 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Seems like the T55 could be produced fast so the Russians had that going for them but as far as head to head what was a better tank? That depends on the generation of M60.. The M60A3 for the win over the T55 ... Yah but a T-72 would win over an M-60A3 M-60's did pretty well when the Marines used them during Desert Storm. I thought they upgraded to the Abrams in theater before shield changed to storm ? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 3:36:14 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted: A M60 would take a giant shit on a T-55 just about every time they'd meet each other in 1 vs 1. so eloquent  |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 3:39:08 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Seems like the T55 could be produced fast so the Russians had that going for them but as far as head to head what was a better tank? That depends on the generation of M60.. The M60A3 for the win over the T55 ... Yah but a T-72 would win over an M-60A3 M-60's did pretty well when the Marines used them during Desert Storm. I thought they upgraded to the Abrams in theater before shield changed to storm ? No; the Marines still deployed A1s with ERA during the ground offensive... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 3:39:09 PM EDT
[#41]
I'm glad someone asked the question. It just popped in my head the other day, mostly because I was playing World in Conflict. The Heavy Tank class in the game consists of the M1A1 Abrams, the T-80, and the Leopard 2. The medium tank class consists of the M-60A3, The T-62, and the Chieftain Mk 5.
I'd tank an Abrams any day in the game and in real life over the T-80 or the Leopard 2, but I was curious as to how the Patton would stack up against the T-62 and the Chieftain. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 3:39:56 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Seems like the T55 could be produced fast so the Russians had that going for them but as far as head to head what was a better tank? That depends on the generation of M60.. The M60A3 for the win over the T55 ... Yah but a T-72 would win over an M-60A3 M-60's did pretty well when the Marines used them during Desert Storm. I thought they upgraded to the Abrams in theater before shield changed to storm ? Most Marines were still using the M60 in Desert Storm. There was one USMC unit that was basically "loaned" some M1A1s by the Army, but the others still had M60s. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 3:40:29 PM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
Don't know, but I recall talking with an Israeli guy who had been in their army in the 1970s, who said the M60 caught fire a lot when it got hit, so they developed the front-engined Merkava. No, fire killed a lot of Israeli tankers, so 1.) FRH was developed for the hydraulics, 2.) better air filters were designed for the M60 MBT, and 3.) Nomex CVC uniforms were designed for the crewmen so they wouldn't burn so easily from flash fires. The Merkava was initially developed for domestic manufacture before the advent of advanced composite armor that later became the norm for western MBTs. Placing the engine up front offered more protection from frontal hits, but there are other advantages such as ammo replenishment, transferring casualties while in contact, extra room for transporting grunts, etc. I had a MSgt that went over there for training tell me the Merkava was a "tankers' tank". |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 3:43:31 PM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
Tactics, training, crew and support matter more than anything. This, you saved me some typing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 3:47:13 PM EDT
[#45]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Seems like the T55 could be produced fast so the Russians had that going for them but as far as head to head what was a better tank? That depends on the generation of M60.. The M60A3 for the win over the T55 ... Yah but a T-72 would win over an M-60A3 M-60's did pretty well when the Marines used them during Desert Storm. I thought they upgraded to the Abrams in theater before shield changed to storm ? No; the Marines still deployed A1s with ERA during the ground offensive... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/DM-SC-92-03658.jpg 1st, 3rd, 8th, and one or two companies from 4th Tk BNs deployed with M60A1s. 8th Tk Bn had two M60A3s from the NYANG they that were offered to them before the Guard buried the rest of theirs in the Saudi desert after NETTing to the M1 IP. Only 2nd Tanks and two companies (eta: corrected "B" &"C" Co.) from 4th Tk Bn had the M1A1. 2nd Tanks didn't get close enough to smell the gunpowder (hahaha Col. Cardi, lol you schmuck). "B" Co. from Yakima, WA kicked ass against the RG. Their company commander was an animal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 3:54:25 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted:
I'm glad someone asked the question. It just popped in my head the other day, mostly because I was playing World in Conflict. The Heavy Tank class in the game consists of the M1A1 Abrams, the T-80, and the Leopard 2. The medium tank class consists of the M-60A3, The T-62, and the Chieftain Mk 5. I'd tank an Abrams any day in the game and in real life over the T-80 or the Leopard 2, but I was curious as to how the Patton would stack up against the T-62 and the Chieftain. Chieftain was a good tank. The Brits have always designed good tanks. 120mm rifled main gun while we were still fucking around with a 105mm. The Anglo-Saxon mind putting out a better product. You know their crews were bound to be good. I've been in Challenger 1s as well. Different? Yes. They use a projectile with (I believe) two bags of propellant. A former member of the British Army told me that loading was faster than one would think. I thought they were nuts for not wearing helmets back in the day, but a CVC helmet has been adopted and was in use for ODS, so I guess they thought that one over. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 4:00:14 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Seems like the T55 could be produced fast so the Russians had that going for them but as far as head to head what was a better tank? That depends on the generation of M60.. The M60A3 for the win over the T55 ... Yah but a T-72 would win over an M-60A3 M-60's did pretty well when the Marines used them during Desert Storm. I thought they upgraded to the Abrams in theater before shield changed to storm ? Most Marines were still using the M60 in Desert Storm. There was one USMC unit that was basically "loaned" some M1A1s by the Army, but the others still had M60s. That must have been what I was thinking of.....Thanks |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 4:02:24 PM EDT
[#48]
Quoted:
Tactics, training, crew and support matter more than anything. That said, main battle tanks are going to go the way of battleships. Tank to tank battles will probably never happen again, too hard to even stage before air power takes them out. If the choppers don't get them, the tank killers will, if the drones don't get them the hand held missles will. They've become land based dreadnoughts, at least if they ever go up against a modern foe again. That prediction has been made so many times in the 20th Century, it's become a cliche. In the '90s, the Army was talking about staging warehouses of remotely operated MBTs in AOs that we had strategic interests in (such as the ME), and fighting the tanks from a "simnet" type station here in the states like drone pilots do from the U.S. now. Maintenance would be a challenge, but it could and probably will be done IMHO. Weaponized RGVs would have significant advantages in terms of cost, weight, and lethality with the kind of sensors being developed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 4:03:16 PM EDT
[#49]
Did any ruskie tanks get stolen and taken for a awesome police pursuit through southern california running over motorhomes and the like. I think not score m60
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vESIVemfG8 |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 4:03:48 PM EDT
[#50]
M60.
T72 vs M60 would be much more evenly matched. |
|
|
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.
