Murph Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 Ok, for all you CDATs out there, if push came to shove and the M-60 series of tanks had to go to war, which were the best of the series? M-60, M-60A1, M-60A1 RISE Passive, M-60A2, M-60A3, etc? Did the M-60 ever see war, and if so how did it do? IIRC from the couple of times I had to ride in one (I was the infantry platoon chopped to B 2/32 Armor) they were relatively roomy inside for an armored vehicle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKTanker Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 Ok, for all you CDATs out there, if push came to shove and the M-60 series of tanks had to go to war, which were the best of the series? M-60, M-60A1, M-60A1 RISE Passive, M-60A2, M-60A3, etc? Did the M-60 ever see war, and if so how did it do? IIRC from the couple of times I had to ride in one (I was the infantry platoon chopped to B 2/32 Armor) they were relatively roomy inside for an armored vehicle.Obviously the M60A3 is by far the best of the lot, the FCS put it into a league of its own. The M60A1 and perhaps the M60 saw combat in 1973 with the IDF. The M60A1 saw combat with the USMC during ODS. The FCS equivalent of the M60A3 has been used by the IDF in combat as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Steele Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 Ok, for all you CDATs out there, if push came to shove and the M-60 series of tanks had to go to war, which were the best of the series? M-60, M-60A1, M-60A1 RISE Passive, M-60A2, M-60A3, etc? Did the M-60 ever see war, and if so how did it do? IIRC from the couple of times I had to ride in one (I was the infantry platoon chopped to B 2/32 Armor) they were relatively roomy inside for an armored vehicle. The A3 is the best of the followed by A1RISE Passive. The rest I wouldnt give a pluged nickle for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Newbill Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 As a DAT (Dumb Ass Tanker) MOS 19E on M-60A1s and having played with the others as well the correct answer is all or none of the above. The M-48 Gasser (Gasoline) was a lot faster, the FCS in the M-60A3 was better than the others by an order of magnitude or two, the ERA on the Marine M-60A1 made it the best armored, the Diesel AVDS-1790 got the best fuel MPG. Given my druthers I would rather have a Marine M-60A1 W/ERA and add the TTS (Tank Thermal Sight) + the LRF from the Army's 'A3 as the best "tank" of the series "CDAT" was first aimed at the M-60A2 and later the M-1 crews. (Computerized DAT) Speaking of the M-60A2, the 152mm gun/launcher would have been a nice to have addition, missile for long range anti-tank work and the 152mm canister for close up anti-personnel work. Today the M-60A2 is still in the motor pool as a AVLB. The M-728 CEV (Combat Engineer Vehicle) with a bulldozer blade, crane and 165mm demolition gun would also come in handy in urban areas. The CEV with ERA would make a hell of a nice Urban Combat Vehicle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvanDP Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 As a DAT (Dumb Ass Tanker) MOS 19E on M-60A1s and having played with the others as well the correct answer is all or none of the above. The M-48 Gasser (Gasoline) was a lot faster, the FCS in the M-60A3 was better than the others by an order of magnitude or two, the ERA on the Marine M-60A1 made it the best armored, the Diesel AVDS-1790 got the best fuel MPG. Given my druthers I would rather have a Marine M-60A1 W/ERA and add the TTS (Tank Thermal Sight) + the LRF from the Army's 'A3 as the best "tank" of the seriesI always thought if the cold war had lasted longer that would have been called the M60A4 and probably been issued to National Guard and Reserve units. Maybe even add the higher HP engine from the M88 ARV. Did the Army/Marines ever consider shoehorning in the 120mm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archie Pellagio Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 You can even consider anything other than the M60A2 as the most amazingest tank ever? The Israelis definitely put their M60's through a lot of combat in 1973 and in Lebanon, not to mention more 'police' oriented duties during the two intifadas.Some issues with flamability though. Doesn't the Hebrew nickname for the vehicle translate as 'Chariot of burning soldiers'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shep854 Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 "Some issues with flamability though. Doesn't the Hebrew nickname for the vehicle translate as 'Chariot of burning soldiers'?"--LukeY I don't recall a name, but the they sure had issues with the flammable hydraulic fluid. Speaking of which, were burns from flaming fluid not common enough in Vietnam to draw the US Army's attention? Perhaps the nature of combat damage there was not catastrophic enough (RPGs v tank guns ?) to ignite the fluid, so the problem was easily overlooked? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Newbill Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 (edited) First of all there were no M-60s in Viet Nam, might have been one CEV M728. The Fire problem was solved with a switch to FRH (Fire Retardant Hydraulic) fluid and extra armor welded to the chins of the M-60A3. Jordan and Turkey have 120mm M-60A1s. Edited November 15, 2009 by George Newbill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKTanker Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 First of all there were no M-60s in Viet Nam, might have been one CEV M728.George, you brought the M48 into the discussion earlier, you could at least now acknowledge that any lessons learned about the hydraulic system of the M48 are applicable with that of the M60s. After all, they are one and the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Newbill Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 I just did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shep854 Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 First of all there were no M-60s in Viet Nam, might have been one CEV M728. The Fire problem was solved with a switch to FRH (Fire Retardant Hydraulic) fluid and extra armor welded to the chins of the M-60A3. Jordan and Turkey have 120mm M-60A1s. Granted, no M60s in VN; I presumed that the hydraulic systems were similar to the M48, with attendant hazards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shootER5 Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 ...extra armor welded to the chins of the M-60A3. The extra chin armor was added to M60A1s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homerr Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 Hasn't Iran used the M-60, in the Iran-Iraq war? http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/wor...d-equipment.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKTanker Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 Granted, no M60s in VN; I presumed that the hydraulic systems were similar to the M48, with attendant hazards.Not similar, identical. The flash fire hazard was reduced dramatically with the introduction of FRH in the late 1970s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shep854 Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 Not similar, identical. The flash fire hazard was reduced dramatically with the introduction of FRH in the late 1970s. Thanks. Back to my question; were cherry juice fires that uncommon in VN, that the Army didn't see a significant hazard? I'm assuming the change to FRH was due to Israeli experience during the Yom Kippur War. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKTanker Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 Thanks. Back to my question; were cherry juice fires that uncommon in VN, that the Army didn't see a significant hazard? I'm assuming the change to FRH was due to Israeli experience during the Yom Kippur War.Probably very uncommon in VN. The hydraulic fire experiences of the IDF occured when the cherry juice was hot from use and then a pentration occured. Imagine an IDF gunner continually scanning for potential targets while his tank was charging across the desert with all the resultant gun elevation changes and turret azimuth changes. Compare that with an M48 parked at a firebase with little or no scanning, or the M48 on convoy duty with its gun in a fixed position over a fender. Most of the time the M48 will be seeing little combat and when it does there will be little anti-armor threat, but if so, skirmishes will be of short duration. In the first case the hydraulic oil will quickly be at constant high temperature. With the M48 in VN, it is quite likely the hydraulic fluid remained relatively cool and never reached its flash point temperature. Yes, FRH was introduced as a direct result of lessons learned by the IDF in 1973. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Kibbey Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 You're ALL wrong...the M60A2 was clearly the hands down winner for bleeding edge technology, the awesome bitchingness of the Shillelagh Missile, the hugeness of it's 152mm conventional weapon, and the wholesome goodness of the M85 AND the M73 MG's! Also the first vehicle with full-time un-stabilization system and a gunner who could become a casualty of his own TC's weapon! And what's not to like about a silhouette like the John Hancock Building and slab turret armor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth P. Katz Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 The Israeli name for the M48 and M60 series of tanks is the Magach ("ch" is the gutteral, not "ch" like in the word "cheese"). Probably a better transliteration is M'G'Ch, an acronym for Merkevet Giborei Chayil (Chariot of War Heroes). The "unofficial" meaning of Magach is Movil Gviyot Charukhot (Carrier of Burned Bodies). The ultimate version of the M60 series are the Magach 6 Bet Gal Batash and Magach 7 Gimel. FYI Bet is the second letter in the Hebrew alphabet and Gimel is the third letter, so you could read these designations as Magach 6B Gal Batash and Magach 7C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murph Posted November 16, 2009 Author Share Posted November 16, 2009 Do I detect a certain level of sarcasm here? You're ALL wrong...the M60A2 was clearly the hands down winner for bleeding edge technology, the awesome bitchingness of the Shillelagh Missile, the hugeness of it's 152mm conventional weapon, and the wholesome goodness of the M85 AND the M73 MG's! Also the first vehicle with full-time un-stabilization system and a gunner who could become a casualty of his own TC's weapon! And what's not to like about a silhouette like the John Hancock Building and slab turret armor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Kibbey Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 Do I detect a certain level of sarcasm here? Certainly not, it's gospel, I swear. An' you can b'lieve 'dat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murph Posted November 16, 2009 Author Share Posted November 16, 2009 After all the M-73 and M-85 made is so, right? Certainly not, it's gospel, I swear. An' you can b'lieve 'dat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Steele Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 After all the M-73 and M-85 made is so, right? I fail to understand the bitch about the M73 and M85. I had several over the years and mine always worked like fine swiss watches. Reliable, dependable and deliverer of consistent auto fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hittite Under The Bridge Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 I fail to understand the bitch about the M73 and M85. I had several over the years and mine always worked like fine swiss watches. Reliable, dependable and deliverer of consistent auto fire. Of course the M73A1/M219 fixed all of the faults of the M73. Those not of Sam foisted the M240 on us....a travesty still undone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Kibbey Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 Of course the M73A1/M219 fixed all of the faults of the M73. Those not of Sam foisted the M240 on us....a travesty still undone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murph Posted November 20, 2009 Author Share Posted November 20, 2009 Were they really THAT bad? Of course the M73A1/M219 fixed all of the faults of the M73. Those not of Sam foisted the M240 on us....a travesty still undone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now