Why is there an M-60?

[MotherRussiaAK74 0]

The tanks were completly replaced by the early 80's.

[Deathbysaw 0]

Were they?

[Subversion 0]

I believe so. The Marines still used them into the 90s, but the Marines tend to get leftovers, anyway.

[Mister Frag 0]

The Marines don't just get leftovers -- the M-60 is much easier to move than the M1A1 due to it's lighter weight. For what the role of the Marines is, that's an important advantage.

[fixOPFsoundsplease 0]

Huh? It is 60 tons is it not? (LOL could be way off)

[Denwad 0]

Why are there M1A1's on backwater island? I think the US's main tank should be the M60 and the light tank should be the M551 Sheridan. J/K

[Mister Frag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from fixOPFsoundsplease on 1:45 pm on Dec. 3, 2001

Huh? It is 60 tons is it not? (LOL could be way off)

<span id='postcolor'>

The M60 weighs around 46 tons, and the M1A1 around 67 tons. That's a significant difference. The dimensions of the M1A1 are also larger, which is another crucial aspect if you wanted to put them on landing craft, for instance.

[King Kong 0]

It may be a crap tank but the M60A3 did it very well in the Persian Gulf war

[MotherRussiaAK74 0]

Not because it was good.. Iraqi tanks just sucked more..

[King Kong 0]

M60A3 sucks even more then the T-72

[Stinger 0]

The M-60 Design began life in the early 1940's as the M-26 Pershing. Upgrades turned it into the M-46 Patton, yet more upgrades the M-48. Finnaly more upgrades and you have the M-60A1. This doesn't mean the hulls were producedJust that the basic design was introduced in the forties. Take that into consideration, and the M-60 is a much better tank than it has any right to be.

[Mister Frag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from King Kong on 5:06 am on Dec. 4, 2001

It may be a crap tank but the M60A3 did it very well in the Persian Gulf war

<span id='postcolor'>

The M60 has been the beneficiary of many upgrade programs over the years (decades, actually), and the American tankers have had much better training and tactical support.

Whether the M60 is better than the T-72 is debateable, they both have their individual strengths and weaknesses. But one cannot argue with the fact that the Americans had much better training than the elite Republican Guards, let alone the regular Iraqi tankers.

I think that if the Americans had been forced to fight with the same equipment as the Iraqis and without air support, it would have been a much closer contest, regardless of the training. But that's all hypothetical anyway...

[nocabiwik 0]

the m1 has a lower centre of gravity compared to a m3 or a m60

lol mental image of a m60 tipping on its side while traversing a hill

[MotherRussiaAK74 0]

Only elite Iraqi tanks were T-72's. The majority were T-55's.

[sgtdwetzel 0]

The M60 was the mainstay tank for the US Marines in the GULF. With the M900 APFSDS DU round(we used to call it "SuperSabot" or "The Silver Bullet") AND, with ERA upgrades, the M60 is still a pretty decent tank.

The M60 has two advantages over the M1...

1 - Running a conventional diesel engine, it gets better fuel mileage

2 - It is a better DEFENSIVE tank than the M1. What I mean by that is by using a gunners quadrant, you can set it up almost as as mobile artillery.

The M60 isn't a bad tank....its just that the M1 is better.

[King Kong 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from MotherRussiaAK74 on 6:07 am on Dec. 4, 2001

Only elite Iraqi tanks were T-72's. The majority were T-55's.

<span id='postcolor'>

No, T-64 wich are somewhat the same as the T-72

[King Kong 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from Mister Frag on 1:19 am on Dec. 4, 2001

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from King Kong on 5:06 am on Dec. 4, 2001

It may be a crap tank but the M60A3 did it very well in the Persian Gulf war

<span id='postcolor'>

The M60 has been the beneficiary of many upgrade programs over the years (decades, actually), and the American tankers have had much better training and Mapping Tool"l support.

Whether the M60 is better than the T-72 is debateable, they both have their individual strengths and weaknesses. But one cannot argue with the fact that the Americans had much better training than the elite Republican Guards, let alone the regular Iraqi tankers.

I think that if the Americans had been forced to fight with the same equipment as the Iraqis and without air support, it would have been a much closer contest, regardless of the training. But that's all hypothetical anyway...

<span id='postcolor'>

The T-72 is alot faster then the M60, it has an autoloader, ERA (reactive armor), Snorkels, a good maingun wich can destroy targets over 3000m+

The T-72 is comparable to the first M1 series

[IDF Merkava 0]

The M60 sucks... Israel is also still using them, and if a sagger rocket hits it, its over for the M60.

( MY personal experience !!!)

This tank is too old and the armor is too low for the today used rockets and AT weapons...

[Joseph Stalin 0]

Lets make it a T105 with a rail gun, 10kg depleted uranium shell fired at 0.5c he he he he!!!