Thats all, brainless TV doesnt talk about this, american commanders dont talk about this too, and at the end, i didnt see that this issue was raised in comments.
Performance and capabilities of export model equipment were so degraded from the original as not to be in any way representative of the original design capabilities.
The monkey model was exported with the same or a similar designation as the original Soviet design but in fact it lacked many of the advanced or expensive features of the original.
Well, the adversaries they met during desert storm were nothing compared with the soviet crews operating soviet tanks, like the T-64 and T-72, they would've met during the '70s if the soviets had decided to invade western Europe. This tank would've been butchered by the soviet tanks in such a confrontation because the soviet tanks had better protection, better mobility and better firepower and the soviets trained their crews much better than the Iraqis.
@StiviGun1 what crack are you smoking i've got 20 years in armor from m 48's to m 60's to m1a2's. t 64 and t 72's could never fire as far as our tanks and thier crews were not as highly trained. we would have mopped them up. the tts(tank thermal sight) in the m60a3 is actually superior to the 1st generation m 1 sight and something else russian tanks cant fire on the move or hit a target acurately if the targets moving the m60 could do both with its computer stabilization system.
@masonicknighttemplar You know, I hear this bullshit all the time. That the M60's smaller and rifled gun was more powerful than the larger, smoothbore guns the Russians used on their tanks from the T-62 onwards. This actually contradicts physics. Another myth is about the soviet tanks crews. They were much better trained than you can imagine. Tanks were the main weapons the soviets relied on. Their tank crews were very well trained. You don't know what you're talking about.
The fastest US brigade in Desert Storm was the 198th Armoured Brigade attached to the 25th Infantry Hybrid division,which was composed almost entirely of m60's and m113's.
America has replaced these vehicles with joke tanks, namely the Bradley,Abrams and the Stryker.
@TheCrazyJungleMan Of course some stupid redneck knows better. You didn't wrote anything about ammunition which iraqis used, so, yes bullshit as hell. While indo - pakistani wars american tanks were massacred by their soviet counterparts, it happend, didn't it? So don't bother to write some another bitch ass maggot post.
@treydaimon like you said ammunition makes a difference they did not have our stabo rounds or barrel stabilization and thermal sight systems as our US tanks did
@TheCrazyJungleMan Lol modernised M60's vs obsolete iraqi tanks with obsolete ammunition which russians used 15-20 years before desert storm happened. Plus very poorly trained iraqi crews.
Nothing special - get your facts before posting bullshit.
@masonicknighttemplar LOL first of all i was in the military and i can see that you people know shit about soviet doctrine, military or equipment. Go to the wikipedia and check what is a 'monkey model
@treydaimon and then talk, western tanks met in combat only export versions of russian tanks which were so called monkey models, they have never meet versions in which russian army is equiped.
Monkey model was the unofficial designation given by the Soviet Military to versions military equipment of significantly inferior capability to the original designs and intended only for export.
USMC M60A1 blazer fitted Pattons defeated Iraqi T-72s with a 105mm main gun. One of the speakers incorrectly stated that "advanced electronics" aided in defeating the Iraqis. NOT. A trainer, assigned to train some of these outgoing USMC takers at the Fort Knox school of Armor had to dust off the old M60A1 training aids found stored in some near forgotten warehouse (in an M-1 A1 saturated U.S. Army environment no less) and reintroduce the Marines to the wonders of battlesight gunnery.
Battlesight is the use of a single sighting point of reference that is used for a range of distances as applied to a particular type of round. The best example of this using a small arms analogy is that a hunter would normally sight his 30-06 rifle scope dead center at 100 yards, for say, a 150 grain spitzer bullet, but because of the ballistics of that bullet, a center-of-mass shot at 200 or 300 yards that was sighted at 100 yards would hit the target within four inches
...of the intended point of aim. This theory was used also in tank gunnery with great effect (at distances I'm not privy to but you tankers out their should get the idea).
As I look at this old girl, I can hear our TC telling me to stop. Our gunner Freddie is locating the target. Our loader Maurice is ready to load her on command. I can hear the hum of the turbochargers in the pouring down rain. I can feel the warmth of the exhaust of the tank in front of me in convoy. I know every compartment and grease fitting on her. I can pull the pack in the dark in a snowstorm. Old memories of an old soldier.
That's why this vid attributes the "success" of the tank to its' crew and not the equipment... If dudes from the 60s (viet-cong) could counter this tank, M60 certainly has low survivabilty on the modern battlefield...
@drfan2004 Transformers always hailed the best. I agree, but we need to upgrade the reserve if they are to survive. I really like the M60 Phoenix variant from Jordan. :)
The M60 along with the Centurion inflicted heavy tank losses on the T-62's during the yom kippur war . The biggest advantage that the M-60(And other western tanks) has over the T-64 or any other Russian tank is its high-profile, which allows the tank to depress its main gun by -10 degrees, Russians tanks can only do -5 degrees. Meaning alot less of the M60 is exposed when firing from a hull down position compared to a Russian tank, which has alot exposed
@ModelbuildingTANKS kept in reserve? wow so there are some US generals with brains!! i see this tank coming back into service too in Afghanistan and even Iraq.They use them for airbase security,i noticed they were featured in the first installment of the film Transformers.
I still can't figure out how an un-armoured tank, protected by nothing but a simple steel case, could have remained in service into the 1990s. Even by 1980 this thing was obsolete. Even the T-64 and T-72 were being fitted with a simple composite armour and that was in the 1960s. How on earth did they manage to use this practically un-armoured machine to such effect, even against the threat of modern RPGs in urban environments?
@MrPedoShine I know it's still good, it's just everything else is so much better. Even an old RPG4 could take one of these bad asses down. I mean really what kind of protection can steel give you?
@launch4 "Even an old RPG4 could take one of these bad asses down." Even an old RPG in the hands of a right man at the right time can KO even some of the latest tanks such as the T-80 in Chechnia. Therefore this evaluation of the M60's vulnerabilty is really an irrelavant evaluation the Patton's total protection prowess.
@launch4 "I know it's still good, it's just everything else is so much better." This is a hasty generalization that totally ignores the fact the M60 outperformed its T-55,T-62,and T-72 rivals in numbers of wars. So everything else isn't better.
@launch4 "I still can't figure out how an un-armoured tank, protected by nothing but a simple steel case, could have remained in service into the 1990s" the M60 isn't just protected by simple steel it's protected by thick Rolled Homgenous Armour plate that is well-sloped at that. While the T-64 may have been the first tank to feature composite in its armour,it only had its front covered by it the rest of the tank was simple thin steel.
@VickersIndependent From a frontal profile the M60A1-3 does have decent ballistic protection and LOS thickness. From lots of angles the M60A1 could take 115mm and 125mm rounds of the 1960s and early 70s.
In lots of less sexy ways such as armor and gun caliber the M60 is a great tank of the day..
@launch4 "How on earth did they manage to use this practically un-armoured machine" also if you're comparing the M60's armour to that of a T-64,you're in for a rude awakening. As despite the fact that the T-64 was the first tank to use composites in its armour,it only had composite armour in its front. The sides,rear,roof,and belly all were simple steel easily defeatable by NATO munitions of the era. Also the T-64 had nasty habits of engine fires while the M60 never had such problems.
@aussieblackhawk123 Because it was totaly obsolete in terms of protection. Steel armour, with max 180mm thickness, equivalent to about 300mm RHA. RPG7 weakest round PG7V can penetrate 330mm RHA, so i let you imagine bigger weapons. In gulf war, their success is the result of trained crew, number, coordination, air superioty, and superb firecontrol of the M60. Iraqis were totaly depassed, but all their guns were able to kill the M60. T55 Heat : about 400mm rha, APDS, about 300 at 1000m.
@aussieblackhawk123 T62 heat = 500rha, APFSDS : 450 at 1km. iraqi T72 clones had shitty ammo that provides half the power of modern russian rounds (of that time, not even speak of 2010 rounds), but to remember best russian 125mm heat could penetrate 800mm rha (beyond era), and APFSDS at last 700mm at 2km.
The ERA fitted on tanks were effective against HEAT warheads, but didn't change anything if a tandem warhead of an APFSDS hit it..
US learn the lesson, with the nearly unpenetrable abrams.
they should upgrade this tank more often it would be cheaper and the miltary wouldnt have to spend millions and millions of dollars on new parts for the abrams the abrams breaks down to much the catipeller tracks always slip or get damaged very easily and the gas mileage on the abrams is awful im not saying the abrams is a bad tank its a badass tank and we have over 6 thousand of them in our arsenal
@goarmy979 What they should've done was to adopt the CATTB Abrams version. That tank had a 140mm gun, a new, more powerful engine, an autoloader and other upgrades that would've probably made it the most powerful main battle tank.
@goarmy979 Oh, and about that fuel problem, they are now developing a new type of engine, an auxiliary power unit, that will be more fuel efficient. But the CATTB version should've been adopted in the '90s. The 140mm gun would've been absolutely devastating against any type of tank out there. It was also lighter. I don't know why they didn't adopted that version, but they should do it now.
@goarmy979 Nobody adopted that version, as far as I know. It was never fielded. The Congress didn't approved further funding for it after the cold war ended. They said that they don;t need newer tanks if the USSR is no more. Boy, with Russia resurging China's rapid military development, wouldn't they want to have adopted this version in the '90s. But now it's not too late either. They can develop this version instead of the M1A3, which doesn't offer too many improvements anyway.
@goarmy979 I think it already has the same armor as the Abrams. And even if it didn't I don't think it's too hard to put the same armor on it. Although, I think serious research should be made on the reactive electric armor. This type of armor offers better protection than any type of armor out there & it allows u 2 make the tank much lighter. As 4 the computers, how hard is it 2 put those computers in the tank. After all, it's just an Abrams with a slightly modified turret and a bigger gun. But
@goarmy979 did you said a bigger gun than the 140 mm one? How big wold you want the gun to be? And it's strange that u don't seem 2 be bothered by the 120 mm gun that's on the current Abrams models, but somehow, the 140 mm one it's not good enough. Remember what the 120 mm gun did 2 the Iraqi tanks in the Gulf War. Now imagine what a 140 mm gun could do. & that gun is longer too, abt 7,5 m long, which will give the projectile a much higher speed. Imagine how powerful that gun is.
@StiviGun1 its an amazing idea i mean you get twice the fire power and the tank would be better for the feul economy and wold save us alot of money instead of making the m1a3 wich would cost alot more
@goarmy979 Well, that's good. Then we're on the same page here.Now, imagine that u would equip this tank with electric reactive armor. That means u can make the tanks smaller & lighter. It can weigh under 20t easily, because the electric reactive armor offers a much better protection than any type or armor out there. Imagine how it would be 2 be able 2 transport an MBT by air with a C-130 cargo aircraft. & this armor can be incorporated on any armored vehicle reducing its weight, but in the same
@goarmy979 time, greatly increasing its protection. The electric reactive armor really allows u 2 build the fast & mobile force the US army currently plans 2 build. With this type of armor, u don't need 2 worry about the vehicle's weight anymore. So u can build very light, very mobile and very well protected armored combat vehicles which also have a lot of firepower. U know, instead of spending money on the Quick Kill system, it would be better 2 spend money developing this type of armor.
@goarmy979 You know, the price is always a problem with modern weapons systems. But I think that once the reactive electric armor issues r solved, the combat vehicles that will wear it, will be much cheaper. The advanced composite armor also costs a lot. So if u would build the tanks or the APCs or the IFVs only from aluminum, they will be much cheaper. & much better protected too, with electric reactive armor on them.
@StiviGun1 yea but alluminum isnt always useful i would like to see heated uranium on the turret and maybe even on the haul did you know that heated uranium can snap a sabo round like a tooth pick and can also take heat rounds
@goarmy979 No, I didn't know that, but it doesn't matter if u use electric reactive armor. U don't need 2 spend money on complex materials 4 armor if u use electric armor. That electric armor can take dozens of RPG rounds with the tank not being affected at all. All u need 2 do is build the tank of the APC or the IFV from a very light material, aluminum is the most suited 4 that, so they can be easily air transportable & put electric armor on them. Heated aluminum may be very resistant against
@goarmy979 HEAT rounds or even AP rounds, but it will never provide the protection the electric reactive armor provides. The vehicle that's wearing the electric armor will only have to be resistant against the shock wave of the projectile's blast, that's all.The electric reactive armor is the most efficient type of protection out there. That's why I don;t understand why they're not investing into this technology.
@goarmy979 Yeah, they tested it, but they didn't continue doing research on it. They prefer 2 spend on Quick Kill like systems, instead, which r expensive as hell and they don't have 100% efficiency either. The electric armor on the other hand, works every time, better than quick kill like systems out there.
@StiviGun1 reactive armor is still used to cover the catipillar tracks on the m1a1 but yea they need to use it for the turret and other spots i think the u.s military needs to wake up and start investing more into the reactive armor
@goarmy979 The armor that u r talking about is EXPLOSIVE REACTIVE ARMOR or ERA, not electric reactive armor. The electric armor works by generating a very powerful electrical field around the area it needs 2 protect. It usually doesn't even let the projectile touch the tank. The electric field is so powerful that simply melts down the projectile be4 it even touches the vehicle. In some tests, the AP rounds were simply transformed into the state of plasma, that's how high the temperatures that
@StiviGun1 what crap Stupid Stivi is telling "electric field melts into plasma the projectile before it even touches the vehicle" >where is all that electric energy gonna come from ? to melt a projectile that is moving at thousands of mph >what energy source ? that is "why they stopped the work on it" Stupid Stivi you again dont understand the practical considerations of fielding weapons. They still wont let you out of Romania ? Stupid Stivi, not even out of your mental hospital ?
Note that Stevi is specifying a "electric field that melts into plasma the incoming projectile" as a counter to goarmy979 claim of explosive reaction armor stopping a incoming. Stevi is being a piggy there.
Explosives are many pounds of energy stored and released in microseconds. there is the energy source in reactive armor
creating electricity is different. what generator of any sort on a tank will create enough electricity to MELT INTO PLASMA incoming projectiles, fuck Stivi
I don't have a problem with your point. I'm just saying you don't have to be so rude. I came to look at the vid, and I had to see your comment, smae happens for other people, its not nice.
By the way (as you probably already know) the British have experimented with using electricity in their tanks in large enough amounts to turn an incoming projectile into plasma. I have no idea what the result of the experiments was.
I do study physics, and find that such far out principles may work, in the future.
But this plasmating incoming rounds is not going to be in our lifetime. I do love far out ideas.
The aspect of not being rude is a minor one. We are talking of weapons to kill people, that too is not "nice", so keep it in perspective. these tanks are murdering machines, that is worse than just being rude. grow up and get used to what war means.
They actually are making such system... Well sorta... As it has nothing to do with any plasma or anything 'star trek' alike... What it does is ignites the round in proximity of an IFV by releasing strong electromagnetic pulse(It is known that even common static charge can ignite a shell or rocket)...
This makes sense, a electric charge triggering the round to explode outside of the armor. hell yes that is possible, that makes physics sense, to start a detonation its only neccessary to excite a few molecules of explosive. that is doable with electricity that can be generated and applied, but to turn the round into plasma in a microsec is beyond doable for now, to use the rounds own explosive to destroy it is a smart way to go.
@goarmy979 I don't know. But they have a system similar to the quick kill, called iron fist. They usually have what the Americans are offering them, so I don't think they have this technology. But I could be wrong though.
@goarmy979 type of armor generates are. And there are no effective counter measures for it neither. There's nothing you can do to it. That's why I don't understand why they stopped the work on it.
the m60 patton didnt really got a fight in desert storm because of the abrams.if abrams tanks werent used in desert storm,the U.S wud suffer heavier casualties.
negitive.... the abrams has spaced armor..... with combinations of airpockets and ceramic plates.... but in terms of passive armor.... the m60 was the thickest..... over 1000mm of solid passive armor.
because.... americans arnt stupid... the m60 was designed after ww2 when projectiles wer not that advanced.... so with the modern anti tank rockets and armor piercing tank rounds... comes a modern defence of explosive reactive armor.... it also had a shitload of upgrades from the base m60a1 patton but the basic tank and its pre era thick armor still remained
lol fucking retard the M60 had a maximum of 225 mm armour.
You know how fucking heavy it would be with 1000 mm of armour? You know how big it would be to have a METER of armour?? The fucking WWII king tiger had 180 mm of armour and weighed 70 tons.
@TheGatman101 1000m... Well, real life kinda data contradict u my friend. This tank is much lighter than the Abrams, which has a maximum armor thickness of about 30cm, which, from the front offer a protection equivalent with 1600mm of RHA against HEAT rounds. If the M-60 would have such a thick armor, it would be much heavier than the Abrams.
Every time i went on the post cold war tanks video there was a talk about monkey versions of russian tank.Who fucking cares anyway?
valtervermezovic 1 week ago
Thats all, brainless TV doesnt talk about this, american commanders dont talk about this too, and at the end, i didnt see that this issue was raised in comments.
treydaimon 1 week ago
Performance and capabilities of export model equipment were so degraded from the original as not to be in any way representative of the original design capabilities.
treydaimon 1 week ago
The monkey model was exported with the same or a similar designation as the original Soviet design but in fact it lacked many of the advanced or expensive features of the original.
treydaimon 1 week ago
Well, the adversaries they met during desert storm were nothing compared with the soviet crews operating soviet tanks, like the T-64 and T-72, they would've met during the '70s if the soviets had decided to invade western Europe. This tank would've been butchered by the soviet tanks in such a confrontation because the soviet tanks had better protection, better mobility and better firepower and the soviets trained their crews much better than the Iraqis.
StiviGun1 2 weeks ago
@StiviGun1 what crack are you smoking i've got 20 years in armor from m 48's to m 60's to m1a2's. t 64 and t 72's could never fire as far as our tanks and thier crews were not as highly trained. we would have mopped them up. the tts(tank thermal sight) in the m60a3 is actually superior to the 1st generation m 1 sight and something else russian tanks cant fire on the move or hit a target acurately if the targets moving the m60 could do both with its computer stabilization system.
masonicknighttemplar 1 week ago
@masonicknighttemplar You know, I hear this bullshit all the time. That the M60's smaller and rifled gun was more powerful than the larger, smoothbore guns the Russians used on their tanks from the T-62 onwards. This actually contradicts physics. Another myth is about the soviet tanks crews. They were much better trained than you can imagine. Tanks were the main weapons the soviets relied on. Their tank crews were very well trained. You don't know what you're talking about.
StiviGun1 1 week ago
Comment removed
kop4321 1 month ago
@TheCrazyJungleMan So tell me "tank expert" how many tanks does Dominica have
treydaimon 3 months ago
The fastest US brigade in Desert Storm was the 198th Armoured Brigade attached to the 25th Infantry Hybrid division,which was composed almost entirely of m60's and m113's.
America has replaced these vehicles with joke tanks, namely the Bradley,Abrams and the Stryker.
drfan2004 3 months ago
@drfan2004 well hey, Bradley and Abrams are ok. Stryker...hnnnnngg....
I do miss these old cold war dogs. I remember growing up watching documentaries on them.
redreaper2020 2 months ago
@drfan2004
You're an idiot.
Heaney5551 3 weeks ago
@TheCrazyJungleMan Of course some stupid redneck knows better. You didn't wrote anything about ammunition which iraqis used, so, yes bullshit as hell. While indo - pakistani wars american tanks were massacred by their soviet counterparts, it happend, didn't it? So don't bother to write some another bitch ass maggot post.
treydaimon 3 months ago
@treydaimon like you said ammunition makes a difference they did not have our stabo rounds or barrel stabilization and thermal sight systems as our US tanks did
masonicknighttemplar 1 week ago
Comment removed
treydaimon 3 months ago
@TheCrazyJungleMan Lol modernised M60's vs obsolete iraqi tanks with obsolete ammunition which russians used 15-20 years before desert storm happened. Plus very poorly trained iraqi crews.
Nothing special - get your facts before posting bullshit.
treydaimon 3 months ago
@treydaimon wow are you one of these so called wanna be experts who never served a day in the military and claims to know it all? sure sounds like it
masonicknighttemplar 1 week ago
@masonicknighttemplar LOL first of all i was in the military and i can see that you people know shit about soviet doctrine, military or equipment. Go to the wikipedia and check what is a 'monkey model
treydaimon 1 week ago
@treydaimon and then talk, western tanks met in combat only export versions of russian tanks which were so called monkey models, they have never meet versions in which russian army is equiped.
treydaimon 1 week ago
Monkey model was the unofficial designation given by the Soviet Military to versions military equipment of significantly inferior capability to the original designs and intended only for export.
treydaimon 1 week ago
USMC M60A1 blazer fitted Pattons defeated Iraqi T-72s with a 105mm main gun. One of the speakers incorrectly stated that "advanced electronics" aided in defeating the Iraqis. NOT. A trainer, assigned to train some of these outgoing USMC takers at the Fort Knox school of Armor had to dust off the old M60A1 training aids found stored in some near forgotten warehouse (in an M-1 A1 saturated U.S. Army environment no less) and reintroduce the Marines to the wonders of battlesight gunnery.
TheRadioman1976 3 months ago
@TheRadioman1976
Battlesight is the use of a single sighting point of reference that is used for a range of distances as applied to a particular type of round. The best example of this using a small arms analogy is that a hunter would normally sight his 30-06 rifle scope dead center at 100 yards, for say, a 150 grain spitzer bullet, but because of the ballistics of that bullet, a center-of-mass shot at 200 or 300 yards that was sighted at 100 yards would hit the target within four inches
TheRadioman1976 3 months ago
@TheRadioman1976
...of the intended point of aim. This theory was used also in tank gunnery with great effect (at distances I'm not privy to but you tankers out their should get the idea).
TheRadioman1976 3 months ago
Good job America you got rid of this joke and replaced it with a real tank.
ruski1945 4 months ago
As I look at this old girl, I can hear our TC telling me to stop. Our gunner Freddie is locating the target. Our loader Maurice is ready to load her on command. I can hear the hum of the turbochargers in the pouring down rain. I can feel the warmth of the exhaust of the tank in front of me in convoy. I know every compartment and grease fitting on her. I can pull the pack in the dark in a snowstorm. Old memories of an old soldier.
Bobby 8TH Infantry Division 1974
palonejr 4 months ago
Lol, the T-72 or even the T-55 wouldn't have any problem to penetrate the M60 at long range.
treydaimon 4 months ago
That's why this vid attributes the "success" of the tank to its' crew and not the equipment... If dudes from the 60s (viet-cong) could counter this tank, M60 certainly has low survivabilty on the modern battlefield...
melvinthedeathless 4 months ago
i love that tank, still rockin all teh way to the gulf war and still serves in many other nation's armies
psychoclown420 8 months ago
who needs abrams ...
oldschoolking666 10 months ago 7
@oldschoolking666
We still have these guys in reserve.
GameReviewer1987 5 months ago
i hope your in heaven george. this is your legacy!!
Nanostarification 1 year ago
@drfan2004 Transformers always hailed the best. I agree, but we need to upgrade the reserve if they are to survive. I really like the M60 Phoenix variant from Jordan. :)
ModelbuildingTANKS 1 year ago
There was nothing else in my life that has come close to being the gunner on an M60 tank.
It was a thrill to pull the triggers on the gunners yoke.
I qualified twice on the Tank Crew qualification course in Graf Germany, 1976.
The ammo racks for the main gun made great wine racks! They held a wine bottle perfectly and they were insulated so they would not break.
TheM60 tank was my first RV.
I cant imagine riding in one now with my arthritis!
Terrible jolting shaking ride for the crew.
8TH ID
palonejr 1 year ago 2
@palonejr damn....good times for ya eh? :D Thanks for serving!
Closest I got to a tank was working on surplus tank engines converted for heavy generators.
redreaper2020 1 year ago
The M60 along with the Centurion inflicted heavy tank losses on the T-62's during the yom kippur war . The biggest advantage that the M-60(And other western tanks) has over the T-64 or any other Russian tank is its high-profile, which allows the tank to depress its main gun by -10 degrees, Russians tanks can only do -5 degrees. Meaning alot less of the M60 is exposed when firing from a hull down position compared to a Russian tank, which has alot exposed
Reaver4k 1 year ago
I wonder who it is abusing their power to flag comments as spam.
VickersIndependent 1 year ago
@VickersIndependent I wonder too...I unflagged your comments...
jaglavaksoldier 1 year ago 2
@jaglavaksoldier Thank you.:-)
VickersIndependent 1 year ago
@VickersIndependent I agree. There is a good reason why still many M60A3's kept in reserve for the US army.
ModelbuildingTANKS 1 year ago
@ModelbuildingTANKS kept in reserve? wow so there are some US generals with brains!! i see this tank coming back into service too in Afghanistan and even Iraq.They use them for airbase security,i noticed they were featured in the first installment of the film Transformers.
drfan2004 1 year ago
@drfan2004
Apparently, they are giving a bunch of M60s to the ANA to use against the Taliban.
m1up 11 months ago 7
I still can't figure out how an un-armoured tank, protected by nothing but a simple steel case, could have remained in service into the 1990s. Even by 1980 this thing was obsolete. Even the T-64 and T-72 were being fitted with a simple composite armour and that was in the 1960s. How on earth did they manage to use this practically un-armoured machine to such effect, even against the threat of modern RPGs in urban environments?
launch4 1 year ago
@launch4 this tank is still very good dumbass...
MrPedoShine 1 year ago
@MrPedoShine I know it's still good, it's just everything else is so much better. Even an old RPG4 could take one of these bad asses down. I mean really what kind of protection can steel give you?
launch4 1 year ago
@launch4 well I doubt that. Maybe if you shoot it in the rear.
MrPedoShine 1 year ago
@launch4 "Even an old RPG4 could take one of these bad asses down." Even an old RPG in the hands of a right man at the right time can KO even some of the latest tanks such as the T-80 in Chechnia. Therefore this evaluation of the M60's vulnerabilty is really an irrelavant evaluation the Patton's total protection prowess.
VickersIndependent 1 year ago
@VickersIndependent Really? Oh well, I guess it's still pretty good compared to its contemporaries.
launch4 1 year ago
@launch4 "I know it's still good, it's just everything else is so much better." This is a hasty generalization that totally ignores the fact the M60 outperformed its T-55,T-62,and T-72 rivals in numbers of wars. So everything else isn't better.
VickersIndependent 1 year ago
Comment removed
VickersIndependent 1 year ago
Comment removed
VickersIndependent 1 year ago
Comment removed
VickersIndependent 1 year ago
Comment removed
VickersIndependent 1 year ago
@launch4 "I still can't figure out how an un-armoured tank, protected by nothing but a simple steel case, could have remained in service into the 1990s" the M60 isn't just protected by simple steel it's protected by thick Rolled Homgenous Armour plate that is well-sloped at that. While the T-64 may have been the first tank to feature composite in its armour,it only had its front covered by it the rest of the tank was simple thin steel.
VickersIndependent 1 year ago
@VickersIndependent From a frontal profile the M60A1-3 does have decent ballistic protection and LOS thickness. From lots of angles the M60A1 could take 115mm and 125mm rounds of the 1960s and early 70s.
In lots of less sexy ways such as armor and gun caliber the M60 is a great tank of the day..
EasyEs 1 year ago
@launch4 "How on earth did they manage to use this practically un-armoured machine" also if you're comparing the M60's armour to that of a T-64,you're in for a rude awakening. As despite the fact that the T-64 was the first tank to use composites in its armour,it only had composite armour in its front. The sides,rear,roof,and belly all were simple steel easily defeatable by NATO munitions of the era. Also the T-64 had nasty habits of engine fires while the M60 never had such problems.
VickersIndependent 1 year ago
Best tank of its time. Combined the qualities the ideal tank should have: Firepower, mobility, and armor.
kevinrocks2323 1 year ago
Beautiful big ass tank
Daehawk 1 year ago
why did they retire it? it looks cool and it still did the job :)
aussieblackhawk123 1 year ago
@aussieblackhawk123 Because it was totaly obsolete in terms of protection. Steel armour, with max 180mm thickness, equivalent to about 300mm RHA. RPG7 weakest round PG7V can penetrate 330mm RHA, so i let you imagine bigger weapons. In gulf war, their success is the result of trained crew, number, coordination, air superioty, and superb firecontrol of the M60. Iraqis were totaly depassed, but all their guns were able to kill the M60. T55 Heat : about 400mm rha, APDS, about 300 at 1000m.
PATRONSKiii 1 year ago
@aussieblackhawk123 T62 heat = 500rha, APFSDS : 450 at 1km. iraqi T72 clones had shitty ammo that provides half the power of modern russian rounds (of that time, not even speak of 2010 rounds), but to remember best russian 125mm heat could penetrate 800mm rha (beyond era), and APFSDS at last 700mm at 2km.
The ERA fitted on tanks were effective against HEAT warheads, but didn't change anything if a tandem warhead of an APFSDS hit it..
US learn the lesson, with the nearly unpenetrable abrams.
PATRONSKiii 1 year ago
they should upgrade this tank more often it would be cheaper and the miltary wouldnt have to spend millions and millions of dollars on new parts for the abrams the abrams breaks down to much the catipeller tracks always slip or get damaged very easily and the gas mileage on the abrams is awful im not saying the abrams is a bad tank its a badass tank and we have over 6 thousand of them in our arsenal
goarmy979 1 year ago
@goarmy979 What they should've done was to adopt the CATTB Abrams version. That tank had a 140mm gun, a new, more powerful engine, an autoloader and other upgrades that would've probably made it the most powerful main battle tank.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@goarmy979 Oh, and about that fuel problem, they are now developing a new type of engine, an auxiliary power unit, that will be more fuel efficient. But the CATTB version should've been adopted in the '90s. The 140mm gun would've been absolutely devastating against any type of tank out there. It was also lighter. I don't know why they didn't adopted that version, but they should do it now.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1 i think sadi arabia adopted that version but im not sure
goarmy979 1 year ago
@goarmy979 Nobody adopted that version, as far as I know. It was never fielded. The Congress didn't approved further funding for it after the cold war ended. They said that they don;t need newer tanks if the USSR is no more. Boy, with Russia resurging China's rapid military development, wouldn't they want to have adopted this version in the '90s. But now it's not too late either. They can develop this version instead of the M1A3, which doesn't offer too many improvements anyway.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1 it still needs newer computers and armor and a bigger gun
goarmy979 1 year ago
@goarmy979 I think it already has the same armor as the Abrams. And even if it didn't I don't think it's too hard to put the same armor on it. Although, I think serious research should be made on the reactive electric armor. This type of armor offers better protection than any type of armor out there & it allows u 2 make the tank much lighter. As 4 the computers, how hard is it 2 put those computers in the tank. After all, it's just an Abrams with a slightly modified turret and a bigger gun. But
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@goarmy979 did you said a bigger gun than the 140 mm one? How big wold you want the gun to be? And it's strange that u don't seem 2 be bothered by the 120 mm gun that's on the current Abrams models, but somehow, the 140 mm one it's not good enough. Remember what the 120 mm gun did 2 the Iraqi tanks in the Gulf War. Now imagine what a 140 mm gun could do. & that gun is longer too, abt 7,5 m long, which will give the projectile a much higher speed. Imagine how powerful that gun is.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1 no sorry i was talking about the 105 mm cannon i replyed to the wrong person lol
goarmy979 1 year ago
@goarmy979 OK, but what do u think abt the idea of adopting the CATTB Abrams version?
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1 its an amazing idea i mean you get twice the fire power and the tank would be better for the feul economy and wold save us alot of money instead of making the m1a3 wich would cost alot more
goarmy979 1 year ago
@goarmy979 Well, that's good. Then we're on the same page here.Now, imagine that u would equip this tank with electric reactive armor. That means u can make the tanks smaller & lighter. It can weigh under 20t easily, because the electric reactive armor offers a much better protection than any type or armor out there. Imagine how it would be 2 be able 2 transport an MBT by air with a C-130 cargo aircraft. & this armor can be incorporated on any armored vehicle reducing its weight, but in the same
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@goarmy979 time, greatly increasing its protection. The electric reactive armor really allows u 2 build the fast & mobile force the US army currently plans 2 build. With this type of armor, u don't need 2 worry about the vehicle's weight anymore. So u can build very light, very mobile and very well protected armored combat vehicles which also have a lot of firepower. U know, instead of spending money on the Quick Kill system, it would be better 2 spend money developing this type of armor.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1 a better tank but cheaper to build i like it
goarmy979 1 year ago
@goarmy979 You know, the price is always a problem with modern weapons systems. But I think that once the reactive electric armor issues r solved, the combat vehicles that will wear it, will be much cheaper. The advanced composite armor also costs a lot. So if u would build the tanks or the APCs or the IFVs only from aluminum, they will be much cheaper. & much better protected too, with electric reactive armor on them.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1 yea but alluminum isnt always useful i would like to see heated uranium on the turret and maybe even on the haul did you know that heated uranium can snap a sabo round like a tooth pick and can also take heat rounds
goarmy979 1 year ago
@goarmy979 No, I didn't know that, but it doesn't matter if u use electric reactive armor. U don't need 2 spend money on complex materials 4 armor if u use electric armor. That electric armor can take dozens of RPG rounds with the tank not being affected at all. All u need 2 do is build the tank of the APC or the IFV from a very light material, aluminum is the most suited 4 that, so they can be easily air transportable & put electric armor on them. Heated aluminum may be very resistant against
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@goarmy979 HEAT rounds or even AP rounds, but it will never provide the protection the electric reactive armor provides. The vehicle that's wearing the electric armor will only have to be resistant against the shock wave of the projectile's blast, that's all.The electric reactive armor is the most efficient type of protection out there. That's why I don;t understand why they're not investing into this technology.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1 i know they used it one time for the m1a1
goarmy979 1 year ago
@goarmy979 Yeah, they tested it, but they didn't continue doing research on it. They prefer 2 spend on Quick Kill like systems, instead, which r expensive as hell and they don't have 100% efficiency either. The electric armor on the other hand, works every time, better than quick kill like systems out there.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1 reactive armor is still used to cover the catipillar tracks on the m1a1 but yea they need to use it for the turret and other spots i think the u.s military needs to wake up and start investing more into the reactive armor
goarmy979 1 year ago
@goarmy979 The armor that u r talking about is EXPLOSIVE REACTIVE ARMOR or ERA, not electric reactive armor. The electric armor works by generating a very powerful electrical field around the area it needs 2 protect. It usually doesn't even let the projectile touch the tank. The electric field is so powerful that simply melts down the projectile be4 it even touches the vehicle. In some tests, the AP rounds were simply transformed into the state of plasma, that's how high the temperatures that
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1 what crap Stupid Stivi is telling "electric field melts into plasma the projectile before it even touches the vehicle" >where is all that electric energy gonna come from ? to melt a projectile that is moving at thousands of mph >what energy source ? that is "why they stopped the work on it" Stupid Stivi you again dont understand the practical considerations of fielding weapons. They still wont let you out of Romania ? Stupid Stivi, not even out of your mental hospital ?
undogod 1 year ago
@undogod
YOU! Enough with the flaming! There's no need to be so rude.
Ag3nt0fCha0s 1 year ago
@Ag3nt0fCha0s
You are right about not being rude is best, but Stivi is a rude fellow.
Frying him was ok, and Stivi is unimportant to me,
but it does bother me if people do not understand the energy requirements of accomplishing things in weapons physics.
undogod 1 year ago
@Ag3nt0fCha0s
Note that Stevi is specifying a "electric field that melts into plasma the incoming projectile" as a counter to goarmy979 claim of explosive reaction armor stopping a incoming. Stevi is being a piggy there.
Explosives are many pounds of energy stored and released in microseconds. there is the energy source in reactive armor
creating electricity is different. what generator of any sort on a tank will create enough electricity to MELT INTO PLASMA incoming projectiles, fuck Stivi
undogod 1 year ago
@undogod
I don't have a problem with your point. I'm just saying you don't have to be so rude. I came to look at the vid, and I had to see your comment, smae happens for other people, its not nice.
By the way (as you probably already know) the British have experimented with using electricity in their tanks in large enough amounts to turn an incoming projectile into plasma. I have no idea what the result of the experiments was.
Ag3nt0fCha0s 1 year ago
@Ag3nt0fCha0s
I do study physics, and find that such far out principles may work, in the future.
But this plasmating incoming rounds is not going to be in our lifetime. I do love far out ideas.
The aspect of not being rude is a minor one. We are talking of weapons to kill people, that too is not "nice", so keep it in perspective. these tanks are murdering machines, that is worse than just being rude. grow up and get used to what war means.
undogod 1 year ago
@undogod
Your use of rude language is out of place.
You are not fighting a war here and there is nothing here which calls for rude language.
I suggest it is you who should grow up. Here ends the lesson. Goodbye.
Ag3nt0fCha0s 1 year ago
@Ag3nt0fCha0s
what rude language ? come to think of it
I just visited your homechannel and you are one miserable specimen of looser.
Heres the end of you having any say so. you blew it, stay lonely, looser.
undogod 1 year ago
@undogod
They actually are making such system... Well sorta... As it has nothing to do with any plasma or anything 'star trek' alike... What it does is ignites the round in proximity of an IFV by releasing strong electromagnetic pulse(It is known that even common static charge can ignite a shell or rocket)...
Few tests were conduced successfully...
Orthodoxcrusader 1 year ago
@Orthodoxcrusader
excellent info input, thanx Orthodoxcrusader.
This makes sense, a electric charge triggering the round to explode outside of the armor. hell yes that is possible, that makes physics sense, to start a detonation its only neccessary to excite a few molecules of explosive. that is doable with electricity that can be generated and applied, but to turn the round into plasma in a microsec is beyond doable for now, to use the rounds own explosive to destroy it is a smart way to go.
undogod 1 year ago
@StiviGun1 israel has something like that i think
goarmy979 1 year ago
@goarmy979 I don't know. But they have a system similar to the quick kill, called iron fist. They usually have what the Americans are offering them, so I don't think they have this technology. But I could be wrong though.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@goarmy979 type of armor generates are. And there are no effective counter measures for it neither. There's nothing you can do to it. That's why I don't understand why they stopped the work on it.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
the m60 patton didnt really got a fight in desert storm because of the abrams.if abrams tanks werent used in desert storm,the U.S wud suffer heavier casualties.
147saad 1 year ago
@147saad
The US Air Force was very supperior, the M1 made a very good job, but there's no ground combat unless you defeat that Air Force.
joaofga123 1 year ago
And he was outclassed when T-64 appear.
Mitkovich 2 years ago
M60 was a great tank light and fast.More transportable in my opinion that the current Abrams tank,
henchman696 2 years ago
its a fuckin sweet tank..... interesting fact is that it has the thickest armor ever put on a united states armored vehicle
TheGatman101 2 years ago
what are you talking about? the abrams armor is far more thicker than the m-60 Patton. And the m-103 had thicker armor.
120millimeters 2 years ago
negitive.... the abrams has spaced armor..... with combinations of airpockets and ceramic plates.... but in terms of passive armor.... the m60 was the thickest..... over 1000mm of solid passive armor.
TheGatman101 2 years ago
1,000....REALLY? if so, then why did it have ERA in Desert Storm 1...on the front?
120millimeters 2 years ago
because.... americans arnt stupid... the m60 was designed after ww2 when projectiles wer not that advanced.... so with the modern anti tank rockets and armor piercing tank rounds... comes a modern defence of explosive reactive armor.... it also had a shitload of upgrades from the base m60a1 patton but the basic tank and its pre era thick armor still remained
TheGatman101 2 years ago
lol fucking retard the M60 had a maximum of 225 mm armour.
You know how fucking heavy it would be with 1000 mm of armour? You know how big it would be to have a METER of armour?? The fucking WWII king tiger had 180 mm of armour and weighed 70 tons.
You really don't know shit about tanks.
slopedarmor 2 years ago
lol
120millimeters 2 years ago
@TheGatman101 1000m... Well, real life kinda data contradict u my friend. This tank is much lighter than the Abrams, which has a maximum armor thickness of about 30cm, which, from the front offer a protection equivalent with 1600mm of RHA against HEAT rounds. If the M-60 would have such a thick armor, it would be much heavier than the Abrams.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
dumbass the Abrams armour is 4x thicker
FATTYKMCFATFAT 2 years ago
@TheGatman101 And exactly how thick its armour is?
StiviGun1 1 year ago