M60 Tanks

This is a general forum for all types of posts related to Military models.

Moderators: dnichols, GHQ, Mk 1

redleg
E5
Posts: 3396
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 11:02 am
Location: Riverside, CA

Re: M60 Tanks

Post by redleg »

Redleg's Website: micropope.webstarts.com

panzergator
E5
Posts: 3328
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2015 3:44 am

Re: M60 Tanks

Post by panzergator »

Thank you for the article, Redleg. Unfortunately, there is a lot of twisted and disconnected logic used by the author to connect his points and he leads us to invalid conclusions.. I wouldn't use it for any research.

The M60 series' performance in Yom Kippur War did NOT lead to AirLand Battle. ALB was the result of the observations of the Syrian end of the battle from the Golan Heights by US generals DePuy and Starry as they watched the Syrians attack using Soviet doctrine, as well as the inadequacies of the previous doctrine, Active Defense. Active defense was an adaptation of the German defense approach on the Eastern Front in WWII. While effective, we knew how it turned out.

The heavy M60 losses in '73 resulted from the failure by the Israelis to integrate tactically their infantry with armor. The Syrians and Egyptians both infiltrated numerous RPG teams which effectively ambushed Israeli tank units even as they approached the front lines. These RPG teams would have been far less effective had the tanks been accompanied by infantry. Sagger was expected to be the real problem, but the RPGs were far more effective.

The hydraulic fluid used in the turret system of the M60 formed a highly flammable mist which flashed when the lines were ruptured by a hit. This problem was later fixed by a different, less-volatile hydraulic fluid.

The .50 cal commander's cupola, which added to the height, often carried away the top half of the tank commander when the turret was hit (and flexed, as a result, popping the cupola off) )was the real complaint. The Israelis fixed that with a low-profile hatch. While the tank did have a high profile (we all knew that), the height of the turret permitted greater depression of the gun, facilitating fire from ad hoc, hull-down firing positions in European terrain. Remember, the tank was primarily expected to be DEFENDING against the Russians in Europe. Alternatively, Russian tanks were expected to be ATTACKING in Europe, circumstances where hull-down positions and depression of the barrel were less important.

Tank design is USUALLY EVOLUTIONARY. The M60A3 was the END of a design that began with the M26, and the lineage can be easily followed. Its weaknesses were well-known. In the late '60s and early '70s, the US Armor community had the influence, dynamic leadership, the resources, and, particularly as a result of work with the MBT 70, the knowledge, of what was desirable in a new tank, as well as what was do-able.

The developing doctrine resulting from observing Soviet Army doctrine in action, the expected force ratio in Europe, the knowledge of what could be done and what was needed to do it, the development of Chobham armor, and the leadership in the Armor and Army community led to the creation of new tools (M1, M2, Apache, Blackhawk, Tow, Hellfire, the National Training Center) which were seen in action in First Gulf, when all of it was most effective.

In defense of the M60 series, I would point out that the Israelis, using M60s, M60A1s, and Centurions, fought outnumbered and won, not least because their tanks could fire faster and their TRAINING was superior. One problem with T62? Automatic ejection system. When the gun was fired, it ejected the round by automatically elevating the gun. Gunner had to re-acquire the sight picture and bring the gun back on to follow with the next round. It took precious TIME for that cycle (like the cycle time for the M60A2 on our side).

The M60 was the first US main battle tank. Its service began in 1960 and shipped out with US forces in 1991 for First Gulf. In the interim, it was continuously improved and remained effective until its retirement.

One should ALWAYS keep in mind that any armored fighting vehicle is a COMBINATION OF COMPROMISES based on SWAGS about what will be most important and what is do-able with the knowledge, resources, and capabilities at hand. The BEST example I've seen of this is WWII's M3 medium tank (Lee). Why did we even have the thing, with its obvilous shortcomings? One reason is we couldn't yet make a turret ring the size needed for the M4.

The M1 was developed because the doctrine and circumstances demaded its capabilities and we were able to meet those demands. The M60 series was NOT capable of meeting the demands of the doctrine or the demands of enemy capability.

One should give credit to the thousands of folks responsible for forseeing the needs, conceiving the means to develop those needs, and getting those things from concept to reality. Think flipfone or the Apollo program.

I'm afraid the article was a construction of non sequiturs that failed to weave together the significance of the M60 as part of an evolving warfighting system.
Last edited by panzergator on Thu Jan 27, 2022 6:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
All blessings flow from a good mission statement.
Pogo was right. So was Ike.
"A Gentleman is a man who is only rude intentionally." (Churchill)
Give credit. Take responsibility.

redleg
E5
Posts: 3396
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 11:02 am
Location: Riverside, CA

Re: M60 Tanks

Post by redleg »

As usual, I learn more from PanzerGator than from the article! Thanks for the information and insight PG!
Redleg's Website: micropope.webstarts.com

pmskaar
E5
Posts: 1891
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 5:45 am

Re: M60 Tanks

Post by pmskaar »

Excellent insights on the M-60 series and main battle tanks in general, Panzergator.

Roger H
E5
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:40 am

Re: M60 Tanks

Post by Roger H »

The best thing about the M-60 is the fact there is a hatch on the bottom of the hull . It came in mighty handy when the OC wasn’t watching and you could take a dump out the bottom in the field without donning MOPP Level 4 and exiting the turret like you do with the M-1 .

whenimaginationfails
E5
Posts: 159
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 11:00 pm
Location: Massachusetts, United States
Contact:

Re: M60 Tanks

Post by whenimaginationfails »

panzergator wrote:
Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:40 am
Yep. There are minor details for a full-blown M60A3 with GHQ didn't pick up. Both the TC's and the gunner's sight box had an arched lid, for instance, which is not reflected on the model, but it is hard to tell, isn't it? So I wouldn't worry about it. The only real visible difference is the barrel jacket/thermal sleeve.
Thanks panzergator! I was looking for this exact info. Nice to see it in the archives.

redleg
E5
Posts: 3396
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 11:02 am
Location: Riverside, CA

Re: M60 Tanks

Post by redleg »

Did M60s in US service every use a mine plow or mine roller? I know they attached dozer blades, but I've never seen any pictures of them with mine clearing equipment.
Redleg's Website: micropope.webstarts.com

panzergator
E5
Posts: 3328
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2015 3:44 am

Re: M60 Tanks

Post by panzergator »

I think they were under development. Towards the end of the '70s, we had begun to simulate them with chains and tires. The few M60s in Desert Storm may have used them. Don't think we had anything much earlier. I will look. You would think Vietnam would have instigated a more intense effort.
All blessings flow from a good mission statement.
Pogo was right. So was Ike.
"A Gentleman is a man who is only rude intentionally." (Churchill)
Give credit. Take responsibility.

Hoth_902
E5
Posts: 1375
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2014 11:08 am
Location: Pacific Northwest
Contact:

Re: M60 Tanks

Post by Hoth_902 »

I have two Here are a couple of examples. I think they are both from the gulf war.

Image

Image

Image

I have made an M60 with the M1 abrams mind blow and its a beast. Mine is with the one that does not have reactive armor.. I need to do one with the reactive armor. Will post once I get back to Washington.
Quantity has a Quality all its own.

http://warriorbear.weebly.com/

panzergator
E5
Posts: 3328
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2015 3:44 am

Re: M60 Tanks

Post by panzergator »

All Marine tanks. Good photos. GAWD, I LOVE these tanks!
All blessings flow from a good mission statement.
Pogo was right. So was Ike.
"A Gentleman is a man who is only rude intentionally." (Churchill)
Give credit. Take responsibility.

Hoth_902
E5
Posts: 1375
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2014 11:08 am
Location: Pacific Northwest
Contact:

Re: M60 Tanks

Post by Hoth_902 »

Hooo Aaah!!!!!!
Quantity has a Quality all its own.

http://warriorbear.weebly.com/

chrisswim
E5
Posts: 6580
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 11:22 pm
Location: Jacksonville, FL

Re: M60 Tanks

Post by chrisswim »

M60 mine rollers and plows, line charge vehicles. Also M1 Panthers

First the GHQ M1 ABV

Image

M48 w/mine rollers

Image

M60s
Image

Image

Image

Image

M60 line charge

Image

Image

Image
Chris

chrisswim
E5
Posts: 6580
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 11:22 pm
Location: Jacksonville, FL

Re: M60 Tanks

Post by chrisswim »

Continued……..

M1 Panther

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image
Chris

panzergator
E5
Posts: 3328
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2015 3:44 am

Re: M60 Tanks

Post by panzergator »

A number of the pics Chris posted are of test vehicles in programs of the '70s and '80s. I was assigned to the Armor Board at Ft. Knox in '81, which was responsible for conducting user tests of equipment proposed for use by armored units. We were not conducting any tests of mine plows, mine rollers, or dozer blades at that time. I don't know what agency does that now.

It appears to me that much of what was once done by a very dynamic Armor establishment has reverted to control by an Infantry branch still thinking at two and a half miles an hour. Consolidating the two schools at Benning may have been seen as financially efficient, but the leadership in maneuver warfare has suffered greatly for it. The Armor community appears suppressed. A great example of what I'm talking about is AirLand Battle. When DePuy and Starry returned from the Golan after the '73 war, they pitched their new concept to both Benning and Leavenworth, hoping that one of the agencies would develop the doctrine. Both refused. Starry was headed to command Fort Knox. He happily raised his hand and the process was begun by the Armor folks there. INITIATIVE! Once the development was underway, Leavenworth finally got involved. Starry was ALWAYS pushing the necessity to "FIGHT OUTNUMERED AND WIN, as we knew we had to in Europe. Finding ways to seize the initiative and attack, rather than sittibg in bunkers (a la Lloyd Fredendall at Kasserine) waiting for the enemy's decision, was the only way we were going to stop the Soviet onslaught.

Oh, my. This has degenerated into a rant. My apologies.
Last edited by panzergator on Sat Jan 29, 2022 8:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
All blessings flow from a good mission statement.
Pogo was right. So was Ike.
"A Gentleman is a man who is only rude intentionally." (Churchill)
Give credit. Take responsibility.

Hoth_902
E5
Posts: 1375
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2014 11:08 am
Location: Pacific Northwest
Contact:

Re: M60 Tanks

Post by Hoth_902 »

I read Fred Frank's book, released after the gulf war, in which he talked about the same thing. Not sure if general's name is correct. I will check when I get back to Washington next week.
Quantity has a Quality all its own.

http://warriorbear.weebly.com/

Post Reply