I served in the USMC reserves 1986-90 (in peacetime) and my MOS was tank crewman on the M60A1- Rise Passive. (A Marine Tanker) It was a great machine. The most enjoyable times I had was when we could live fire the main gun, M-85, and coax and just cruise on the ranges. I also got a chance while I was in to operate the M-48A5. The M-60 was a massive improvement. The M-1 was a "dream tank" back then that only the Army had, but we had a lot of pride in what we did!
we should have never gotten rid of the m60s, we should have upgraded them with modern armor, put a shortened 120mm gun on like the israelis did, put more advanced electronics on them, put an updated protected cupola with a .50 cal machine gun on top of the turret, & put a newer engine in.
in my opinion, the m60 is much better suited to urban combat than the m1 abrams. the m60 was made with urban warfare in mind, the m1 was made to defeat soviet armor formations on the fields of europe
but your army is very good for using M60A3TTS this tank can take down a T-72M or T-72B or even Type-90 and Type-85 IIAP and also Type-74 and dont worry because if anyone attacked you UAE & US will help you we got in UAEDF 403 Leclerc EAU AMX-56 Azur and US got thousands of M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank
@sakoshooter48 the Abrams is still a very good tank, especially with its armor protection and electronics. both the M60s and M1s are wonderful tanks but sooner or later we had to modify.
@ckkabramz By chance have you seen some of the latest tech specs on the electromagnetic shielding they have been playing with? At this time, they are able to hold an equivalent 300 ft. column of water behind a four inch electromagnetic aperture. Imagine the possibilities as the technology matures!
One thing I never understood about the M60; the copula was taken off of the M48 after the Israeli's found that it was causing a disproportionate number of TC deaths, and the US Army followed suit. However, the M60 kept its copulaIts not like that short breach 50 cal was worth keepingM60 Tank Company XO, 85.
This has very little to do with the M-60 machine gun, and there is no A1 version of the M-60 MACHINE GUN. This is about the M-60A1 Patton tank. But the M-60 tank did use a M-60 co-axial machine gun. :-D
I agree, we went from 48s to 60s and were very happy not to have gasoline in the bottom of the hull anymore. A good tank the 60 is but would hate to face a T72 or 80 with it
I know Isreal didn't lose the Egyptians would have torched them if they didn't leave the cover of their missile umbrella which was killing the Patton tanks and using SAMs to down the F-4's. Once Egypt left then the Israels basically kicked their ass but it gave Isreal a huge wake up call and they developed the Merokva while we developed the Abrams.
All it takes is an RPG-7 and its over the Isreal's found out the hard way when they went up against Soviet missiles fired by the Egyptians. That's why the Abrams was made so it could take kinetic and energy rounds over and over again.
Someone apparently agrees with you, they got a crapload of these things moth balled, and ready for re-arming if need be.
There great for defensive purposes, even one of these things could ambush and take out an Abrams. They should be using these things in iraq, put some heavier armor in the under belly and let her rip, she can still cover infantry, and at a cheaper cost than the Abrams, and probably even the Bradley.
130 mm of protection isn't going to protect against anything unless you put a lot of ERA for protection. Also if you saw that the ammo compartment was exposed unlike where the Abrams has its Ammo in a blast proof chamber. If a round hit the ammo compartment in a M60 its all over for the crew. If it does it for the Abrams, there are blast doors that protect the crew and blowout panels that vent the explosion up.
with some retro fitting here n there the patton can be just as effective as the abrams and more cost efficient, that plus the skilled crews. We should've kept it in service
I served in the USMC reserves 1986-90 (in peacetime) and my MOS was tank crewman on the M60A1- Rise Passive. (A Marine Tanker) It was a great machine. The most enjoyable times I had was when we could live fire the main gun, M-85, and coax and just cruise on the ranges. I also got a chance while I was in to operate the M-48A5. The M-60 was a massive improvement. The M-1 was a "dream tank" back then that only the Army had, but we had a lot of pride in what we did!
ezzieshapiro 20 hours ago in playlist M60A1
we should have never gotten rid of the m60s, we should have upgraded them with modern armor, put a shortened 120mm gun on like the israelis did, put more advanced electronics on them, put an updated protected cupola with a .50 cal machine gun on top of the turret, & put a newer engine in.
in my opinion, the m60 is much better suited to urban combat than the m1 abrams. the m60 was made with urban warfare in mind, the m1 was made to defeat soviet armor formations on the fields of europe
controlusplease1 6 months ago
Im wondering why shoot MG and not the main gun since theres armour, the other tanks could have shot em while they were shooting mg.
BirgirZ 1 year ago
what was this from,and what year?
boobtuber06 1 year ago
Ahhhhhh why would we get rid of those beautiful tanks there so much more bad ass than the abrams
MiGFoxhound31 2 years ago 10
@MiGFoxhound31 but looks so damned chunky :(
sucks too that its basically a rip-off of all the generation 2 tanks of WW2, with the distinct sloped hull. nothing badass about it if you ask me.
SpanerMagnet 1 year ago
@MiGFoxhound31 there are about 200 m60a3 and 300 m-48
in taiwanese army. they are beautiful tanks
but the tanks are not in good condition spare parts are hard to get
now.
why would usmc not use m60 anymore :(
grantourismo0109 1 year ago
@grantourismo0109 because they want tanks that uses the 120MM M256
but your army is very good for using M60A3TTS this tank can take down a T-72M or T-72B or even Type-90 and Type-85 IIAP and also Type-74 and dont worry because if anyone attacked you UAE & US will help you we got in UAEDF 403 Leclerc EAU AMX-56 Azur and US got thousands of M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank
MetalGearArmA 1 month ago
@MiGFoxhound31 BUWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh dear god that was such a miserable motherfuker. When we saw the M1 we couldn't believe our eyes.
sakoshooter48 1 year ago
@sakoshooter48 the Abrams is still a very good tank, especially with its armor protection and electronics. both the M60s and M1s are wonderful tanks but sooner or later we had to modify.
ckkabramz 3 weeks ago
@ckkabramz By chance have you seen some of the latest tech specs on the electromagnetic shielding they have been playing with? At this time, they are able to hold an equivalent 300 ft. column of water behind a four inch electromagnetic aperture. Imagine the possibilities as the technology matures!
sakoshooter48 2 weeks ago
do the m48 tank and m60 tank have same overall length of the hull?(not include gun forward)??
italydogpink 2 years ago
this was the most advaced tank the us had before the abrams wow what a change
KHfreak7526 2 years ago
One thing I never understood about the M60; the copula was taken off of the M48 after the Israeli's found that it was causing a disproportionate number of TC deaths, and the US Army followed suit. However, the M60 kept its copulaIts not like that short breach 50 cal was worth keepingM60 Tank Company XO, 85.
Waltham1892 2 years ago
man, brought back memories. Tank commander in early 1980.
JackVrooder 2 years ago
the m60 machine gun is very good!! so what's the differences between m60 and m60a1 machine gun??
musardus 2 years ago
are you stupid or something? retarded maybe? this video is about the M60A1 Patton MBT ( MAIN BATTLE TANK) not the M60 machine gun. moron.
xXturbo86Xx 2 years ago
This has very little to do with the M-60 machine gun, and there is no A1 version of the M-60 MACHINE GUN. This is about the M-60A1 Patton tank. But the M-60 tank did use a M-60 co-axial machine gun. :-D
rilowig 2 years ago 7
your a pretty dumb guy
jerpao13 2 years ago
I agree, we went from 48s to 60s and were very happy not to have gasoline in the bottom of the hull anymore. A good tank the 60 is but would hate to face a T72 or 80 with it
memikell 2 years ago
5:02 does that hit him????
Mrbob200 2 years ago
well there have been reports of RPG attacks on ERA they fire one at the armor and fire a 2nd at the same place
Mrbob200 2 years ago
wouldn't they be a bit vulnerable standing out of the turret?
alieu156 2 years ago
True, but if they want to see anything they have to.
memikell 2 years ago
I know Isreal didn't lose the Egyptians would have torched them if they didn't leave the cover of their missile umbrella which was killing the Patton tanks and using SAMs to down the F-4's. Once Egypt left then the Israels basically kicked their ass but it gave Isreal a huge wake up call and they developed the Merokva while we developed the Abrams.
redmustang03 2 years ago
All it takes is an RPG-7 and its over the Isreal's found out the hard way when they went up against Soviet missiles fired by the Egyptians. That's why the Abrams was made so it could take kinetic and energy rounds over and over again.
redmustang03 2 years ago
It is a practice AP round. It's a M724A1 TPDS-T. A practice round of the M728 APDS-T round.
jaglavaksoldier 2 years ago
Pretty slow crew, if mine were that slow, we would have done crew drill all day an night.
Tank Commander
A 2/33d Armored
1972=1976
reconriddler 2 years ago
i also think its all about the crews when it comes down to a battle
Mrbob200 2 years ago
when you have numbers of these things as old as they are they can kick you in the face if you treat them like old people
Mrbob200 2 years ago 2
Someone apparently agrees with you, they got a crapload of these things moth balled, and ready for re-arming if need be.
There great for defensive purposes, even one of these things could ambush and take out an Abrams. They should be using these things in iraq, put some heavier armor in the under belly and let her rip, she can still cover infantry, and at a cheaper cost than the Abrams, and probably even the Bradley.
M249SAWzALL 2 years ago 2
Upgrade the M60s to the Magach 7 IDF standard;conversion cost $790,000
VickersIndependent 2 years ago
Did this for MANY Years! Up--On The Way! TARGET Cease Fire!
GRAF Germany! SPEARHEAD!!!!
HerbWalker 2 years ago
The Israelis figured out the hard way when it didn't stand a chance against Soviet-tank missiles during the Yom Kippur War.
redmustang03 2 years ago
130 mm of protection isn't going to protect against anything unless you put a lot of ERA for protection. Also if you saw that the ammo compartment was exposed unlike where the Abrams has its Ammo in a blast proof chamber. If a round hit the ammo compartment in a M60 its all over for the crew. If it does it for the Abrams, there are blast doors that protect the crew and blowout panels that vent the explosion up.
redmustang03 2 years ago
The M60 was a good tank but it cant compare w/ the Abrams in terms of technology and firepowere/armor
ECWUSA1995 2 years ago
with some retro fitting here n there the patton can be just as effective as the abrams and more cost efficient, that plus the skilled crews. We should've kept it in service
poonjoo 3 years ago 2