"how was the M60A2 used?" Topic

I'm shoehorning a company of starships into my Fulda Gap project – purely because I love the look of them.

My problem though is how were they used?
In discrete all A2 units? Or cross attached with normal gun tanks to give a mix of gun & missiles?

6 complete battalions were equipped. Some mixing later in their deployment.

link

Thanks Hardrock, great site.
There's a teaser there with an anonymous comment hinting at "some units" reorganized with two A2/ one A1 company battalions. No proof of course but plenty info to look through!

Cheers!

Honestly? Most of the time in the motor pool being worked on. Many of my older TC's were A2 guys and none of them had a kind thing to say about them.
They were happy to get A3's…..

With extreme prejudice I believe:) that was one iconic and useful tank. Named after a loud mouth but lived up to its own expeditions and still helping out all around the world.
Cheers and long live the wests version of the T55.

I've read that there were some plans to cross-attach them, by companies, to other tank units.

IIRC, it was one A2 company to two regular tank companies.

The A2s would provide long-range missile overwatch, and support.

Not sure if it also applied to the M60A2s, but I know firing standard HEAT rounds on the M551s caused the missile system to crash, due to the heavy recoil the little scout tanks suffered from that. Given that the M60A2 was heavier, perhaps that was less of an issue for them. I suspect someone that knows definitively may be along to comment shortly.

It says 542 were built. Did they turn them into standard M-60s when the missile/gun program was dropped? Or scrap everything?

I got the Tamiya 1/48 pre-built of "Starship" dirt cheap on Ebay. There is a battery operated motor inside a snap fit hull with rubberband type tracks. It is actually a very nice detailed model. At first glance I thought it was way over the stated scale but after checking the measurements with a scale ruler against those for the real thing the model is spot on. Damn, those things were BIG.

I don't know what happened to them … they probably turned them back in to standard M60s. However, the gun/missile system, like on the M551, was not a very successful design. Most were glad they were gone from what I understand.

When the A2 was phased out in 1982 the turrets were scrapped and most of the hulls were converted to either A3s or AVLBs.

They were rebuilt into A3s. The best thing that could happen to them. The Shillelagh gun/missile was too soon for the technology. The brass wanted to show something for all the money thrown at the XM103, so they came up with the Starship. I don't recall anyone who thought the A2 was any good. Most ex-crewmen I talked to were afraid to shoot a service missile. Too high a probability it would arc over back at them if (when) it malfunctioned.

Thanks Lads; I'm reading some tanks in a troop would only fire missiles while others would be designated as gun tanks.
Makes sense to have an A2 and A1 mix – I'll need to think of an attrition rating for them, 40 – 50 per cent sound about right?

Talking with M551 and A2 crew men the basic feeling was the gun/missle system could only really do one or the other. The beating the system took from firing conventional rounds usually just made the missile system inop. The A2 was an electrical nightmare and the turret spaces were not kind to the crew. The joke was the TC was bowlegged so the gun could recoil, the gunner had no need for legs and the loader needed a right arm like a gorilla, the left arm could just be withered, the right leg could be normal but the left needed to be very short. I was told the missile packed quite a punch but I was also told of a bad missile launch that left the tube and fell to the ground, then the motor kicked in and the missile moved around on the ground until it turned around and got slightly elevated so it took flight across the firing line and headed towards the tower, where it impacted on the engine compartment of a Gamma Goat. Near the end of their operational life in Europe, I was told that it was not unusual for 80% of the vehicles to be listed not mission capable due to turret electrical issues.

Good God…

I have heard similar Major … And being a former Mech Bn and then Bde BMO … If I had any equipment that had an 80% NMC rate. I would have been shot !!

The M60A2 veterans on USABOT seem to think it was a decent concept but with a lot of bugs that still needed to be worked out (IIRC). I've never read anything harshly negative from them crapping all over their Starships but maybe that was just nostalgia for their younger days.

They were mainly used to drive around and block traffic and tear up some old guys rose bushes.

Been there … did that … but with M113s and not only in [West] Germany but the ROK !

Oh the Shillelagh system on the M60, ok I'm now on the same page folks thanks.

How was the A2 used?

Mostly as a training tool for armor maintenance personnel. I never served on an A2 but I had friends who did and none of them liked it. It should tell you something that when they took it out of front-line service, they were were all re-purposed and rebuilt or scrapped. To the best of my knowledge, none of them were passed down to the National Guard or Reserve.

But it and the Sheridan are really cool looking vehicles. I remember reading a story in the US Army's "Armor" magazine about a Sheridan in Vietnam decimating an NVA attack with one round of canister from it's 152mm gun. Of course IIRC the only carried 6 rounds of conventional ammo (if they didn't have missiles and I doubt they carried any in Vietnam maybe they could carry more). And of course this was in "Armor" so maybe the idea was to sell crewmen on the new tanks.

Canister was used by other AFVs and FA in RVN too. However, I think it really increased barrel wear. I was told a story by one of my instructors when I was a cadet. About canister being used on an attacking VC unit. Being fired by an M48 or 105mm FA ? Literally it tacked some bodies and body parts to trees, etc. … Don't think it is used anymore ? That is too bad in some cases, if it isn't …

Think the Israelis still use it or did up until relatively recently. The UN takes a dim view, and criticised them for using in Gaza, I think – so 2008?

Not sure if the IDF used it … But it can be pretty effective [and brutal !] from what I have heard/read. It is meant to significantly attrite massed infantry formations. Kind of like Grape Shot in previous centuries.

It's a shame that the Shillelagh missile sucked so bad.

The Soviets had the right idea, they built a missile that could be fired out of a tank gun. The US built a missile launcher that could fire gun rounds.

Re: Beehive/canister: The US changed from beehive darts to tungsten balls or cubes in the 120mm smoothbore. I think we also added a timed fuse to burst the canister at range instead of at the muzzle.

"Don't think it is used anymore ?"

120mm M1028 is combat proven, started being issued ~2006

any info on the 152mm heat round for the m551/m60a2

The M551s had about 33% – 50% out of service, due to the complexities of the weapons system, at any one time, supposedly, based upon Cav accounts I've read from Europe.

Firing the guns really screwed up the missile system, due to the harsh recoil on such a little vehicle.

Therefore, they tended to designate some for firing missiles, and some vehicles for firing guns. Apparently, you could go from missiles to guns, if the compressed air system was working to blow out the debris, but not from guns to missiles. If your compressed air bottle/system failed, you could use a hose from an adjacent vehicle, to assist with that.

Few missiles sent to Vietnam, with the M551s..

Yea, that canister/beehive was devastating.

Supposedly one unit heard the enemy to their front at night, and opened fire with canister (I think), by sound.

The next morning, they found about 150+ bodies to their front, so it was extremely effective at close range.

From what I've read, the HEAT round was pretty good (penetration wise), though the charge was pretty weak to fire it, so it had a more lobbing trajectory, which supposedly caused some issues. The effective range was shorter than one would normally expect, if the accounts are correct, even with the laser rangefinder, the latter of which should make up considerably for the lobbing flight.

Perhaps, the issue is how much a target could move during the rounds flight to the target.