"America's M60 Patton Tank: Can It Still Fight..." Topic

… the World's Best (At Over 50 Years Old)?

The M60 Patton was the mainstay of the U.S tank fleet in the 1960s and 1970s, before being replaced by the M1 Abrams tank currently in service. However, more than five thousand Pattons remain in service in the armies of nineteen countries. Earlier this year, Raytheon unveiled its Service-Life Extension Package (SLEP) upgrade featuring a new engine, fire control system and 120-millimeter gun.

This M60 SLEP is in competition with a pre-existing three-tier upgrade offered by Israel Military Industries for their M60 Sabra. Sabras in Turkish service, designated the M60T, are active on the battlefield of Northern Syria today, while older-model Pattons are fighting on both sides of the war in Yemen.

The new Pattons are faster and deadlier—but are they tough enough for the modern battlefield?…"
More here
link

Amicalement
Armand

For most countries it doesn't have to fight the world's best, just the neighbour who probably has technology from the same era.

Probably a first-rate bit of kit if handled well.

With a new 120mm it sure could dish it out, but the M60

with armor upgrades is no match for modern weapons.

Yeah, I'd honestly rather have a stock Leo1 that got upgunned to the 120mm. Better mobility.

With the 120 it will most likely kill whatever it hits – other than possibly top of the line Russian kit. So it should be good.

Its just as well armored as a T 80, so any 100mm+ modern tank gun and or modern AT weapon will kill it.

Yes, the M60 would be comparable to most other tanks and for the price would be a great purchase.

Actually, some of the very late-war 105mm rounds were very "hot" and had excellent penetration capabilities.

That'd make the M60 certainly viable against probably 90% of the armor it could expect to encounter, I suspect, and it's especially viable if it can get a flanking shot on opponents.

With a new 120mm, it'd be even better.

The M60's fire control and optical systems in the last batch of the M60A3s were said to be better than the early M1s too, by tankers who'd seen, and/or used both, so……

The key is to just fire first, since the vehicle probably will not survive any inbound fire.

Most M60 operators are probably not interested or afford the upgrade.
They'd more likely rather buy the new wizbang because those would look best on national day.

Sounds good all this love for the M60. Pretty rich history.

If the next hot war in Europe ever comes we may see M-60A3's fighting T-62's after both sides have destroyed or lost on the battlefield all of their first string and second string armour. In war we make do with what we have at our disposal. So yes, when we are desperate enough the M-60 will have a place on the wreck-strewn modern battlefield.

Cheers?
Rod Robertson.

I just love the lines of the Israeli upgrade. Good enough even Turkey had them do 170 for them…

Nice!

Amicalement
Armand

If the next hot war in Europe ever comes we may see M-60A3's fighting T-62's after both sides have destroyed or lost on the battlefield all of their first string and second string armour.

You're assuming there are copious amounts of M60s and T62s parked somewhere. Truth told, the US M60 fleet is all gone (except for some derelict NG units). And the Sovs parked theirs and let them rot (until they got scrapped). Sorry, no M60s or T62s for you…

Only certain countries like Israel keep and upgrade their obsolete tanks as reserves.

The Mech Bde I was in, at Benning, Ga., the 197d Mech. Had a unique Tank Bn TO&E. 3 M60 Companies and 1 M1IP. I think that was the only Tank Bn in the Army organized like that. At that time or ever ? When I served '79-'90. The M60 was the "top of the line", at that time. And the US ARMY's MBT. It could handle just about anything that could come against it. As C12 knows well !

Nice IDF upgrade ! They know how to do it !

Charlie12.wrote:

You're assuming there are copious amounts of M60s and T62s parked somewhere. Truth told, the US M60 fleet is all gone (except for some derelict NG units). And the Sovs parked theirs and let them rot (until they got scrapped). Sorry, no M60s or T62s for you…

Turkey and Greece (NATO states), Egypt and Israel still operate many M-60's and venerable T-62's abound around the world including in many Russian allied states. In a total war these old weapons would likely be used even if they had to be repatriated and refurbished before the using power could field them.

So maybe the Tank-nazi can't cut me off! :-)

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Turkey and Greece (NATO states), Egypt and Israel still operate many M-60's and venerable T-62's abound around the world including in many Russian allied states. In a total war these old weapons would likely be used even if they had to be repatriated and refurbished before the using power could field them.

Highly doubt it. One, you need trained crews (and most of those will be dead, in your scenario). Two, you're assuming the instant sunshine hasn't been dropped. Between first peer nations (US vs Russia), you can bet that it will happen. And then all those banana republic tanks will be so much scrap iron…

Sorry, STILL no M60s or T62s for you….

When I served '79-'90. The M60 was the "top of the line", at that time. And the US ARMY's MBT. It could handle just about anything that could come against it. As C12 knows well !

Well…. Up to a point. When all we had to worry about were hoards of T55s and T62s, yes we could honk on them pretty good. The T64 and later was a different story. The M60A3 (with the ever improving ammo) could hang in there, but just. Little sidebar: When the wall fell (and we got a chance to play with the Sovs frontline stuff) a lot of puckering happened when the stats came out on the Sovs frontline ammo. Real nasty stuff (that could take down a M1, to say nothing a M60). Seems the Sovs were not only selling "import" quality tanks, but "import" quality ammo too.

Charlie12:

One, you need trained crews (and most of those will be dead, in your scenario).

Hmmm, would that be different than the untrained Soviet tank crews who gradually and through great sacrifice, fought the German juggernaut to a halt and then a general retreat in the Great Patriotic War? They may not be able to crew a T-64 or a T-90 but they could probably handle a T-55 or a T-62. One need only look at Africa or Asia to see that this is true.

If the nucs drop, then yes, extinction will trump tank warfare.

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Rod, it won't last that long… The days of major powers having open, multi-year wars is loooooong gone…. Nukes have guaranteed that.

Charlie 12 wroe – "When the wall fell (and we got a chance to play with the Sovs frontline stuff) a lot of puckering happened when the stats came out on the Sovs frontline ammo. Real nasty stuff (that could take down a M1, to say nothing a M60). Seems the Sovs were not only selling "import" quality tanks, but "import" quality ammo too."

….. Very interesting, C12, particularly in view of the fact that the basic M1 design is now itself several decades old. Can you share any background details?

B

I also highly doubt that a long war that kill enough current equipment we will see M60s return to countries that replaced them.
1.For the US at least, there's probably M1s in storage for this kind of thing.
2.There will be time to ramp up production of current tanks since the production line is still open and you can keep training and ammo the same.

What you want is a short but very bloody war ala 1973 and that kind of war with the major powers will probably end with a lot of mushrooms.

Well…. Up to a point.

Yes unfortunately … nothing is 100% "bullet proof" … The US/NATO did plan to attrite the waves of WP/USSR armor with gunships and CAS, as well. That was one reason the A-10 was designed.

….. Very interesting, C12, particularly in view of the fact that the basic M1 design is now itself several decades old. Can you share any background details?

Some of the testing done with frontline stocks of Sov 125mm ammo showed that NATO had badly underestimated the performance of the ammo. Which is the primary reason that the M1s Chobham armor plate mix was reworked so to increase the armor basis. (Nice thing about Chobham armor is the ability to rework the composition of the armor fairly easily). Wasn't too much of problem since the M1s that were being upgraded to M1A1 status at the time received the armor upgrade as well. The M1A2 of today is a very different beast from the M1 of 1985…

That was one reason the A-10 was designed.

Ah, the A-10… Everyone's favorite. Dirty little secret is that even in the mid to late '80s the ability of the A-10 to survive on a first rank battlefield was highly questionable. Some exercises that were run back in the day showed that the amount of WARPACT AD assets would have made the A-10s life span short and brutal. To the point that SEAD missions were considered essential for the A-10s to be anywhere near effective.

For the US at least, there's probably M1s in storage for this kind of thing.

Yes the US has a pretty good surplus of M1 and M2 hulls. Most are stored at Anniston Army Depot and are used for producing the latest upgraded versions. Just about every M1 has gone through Anniston at least once. Every tank goes through a thorough, bottom up, rebuilding when wear-and-tear warrants it (and is brought up to the current state-of-the-art standard).

C12, yes, I'm aware of you posted about the A-10. We know the A-10 was designed to assist with other NATO assets. To stop the massive flood that was supposed to come if the WP crossed the Inter-German Border. And as a Bn Air Ops Ofc in the 101. And grad of the USAF Air/Ground Ops School. We were trained to plan for SEADS along Flight Routes for troop insertions, etc., …

There was a tactic developed for the US ARMY and USAF to use to combat WP armor. Called JAAT, Joint Air Attack Team.

The scenario, the short version, was that the gunships[AH-1, AH-64, etc.] would be hovering behind cover. Like a tree line, ridge, etc.

They'd pop up, engage the WP forces. With TOWs, Hellfire, etc. Go back under cover.

Then A-10s would do a gun[and missile run]. As they pull out.

The Gunships would pop-up again, and engage. Go back behind cover.

Then the A-10s would come back in and do their strikes.

This would continue until ammo was 0. And then all aircraft would withdraw. Using terrain masking etc. … With FA covering the Gunships withdrawing, if needed, etc., …

And in some cases replaced by other flights of Gunships and A-10s.

As long as there was ammo and aircraft available. This could go on for sometime. But even with only one round of the JAAT. WP AFVs, etc., would have suffered losses.

Now we all had designated priority targets.
The top 3 :

ADA
Commo
Command and Control

Of course Air Superiority or at least localized, would be very useful for JAAT type missions. Along with SEADS.
The USAF had assets that's mission were to find and eliminate enemy ADA. Like the Vietnam era Wild Weasels/Iron Hand missions …

And of course the strike package would include CAP, Iron Hand, and then the main body of strike aircraft.

So yes, A-10s along with other NATO air and ground assets could be lost in this scenario. But with all assets used properly. This tactic could work. But like I said, nothing is "bulletproof" …

Legion- Well familiar with the JAAT. Had a rotorhead friend (started in AH-1s, retired in AH-64s). The technique was a prime example of what happens when people want to put their minds to a problem. (My comment was aimed primarily at the A-10 fanboys who claim it can do EVERYTHING in the book. It can't on its own, but it can work well in concert with other assets). And, like you said, nothing is bulletproof. I'm just happy we never got to test how good our assumptions were (or weren't) for real….

Understand, I probably shouldn't have addressed the post to C12. I should have said, something like I agree with much that you have posted, etc., … It was for general distribution. To maybe inform those who were interested, etc., …
I knew you were a Tanker, so you may have been familiar with JAAT. I'm an A-10 fan, but know, like you, how combined arms works.

And Good God yes, very glad I never had to call in a JAAT. To stop some WP armor, etc., … I or you or both of us wouldn't be here …

No prob Legion. Well understood.

And Good God yes, very glad I never had to call in a JAAT. To stop some WP armor, etc., … I or you or both of us wouldn't be here …

AMEN, BROTHER!!! And with my "office" being the driver seat of a M60A3, I have NO doubts about my outcome. (Never got to drive a M1; blasted unit transitioned 1 month after I left for Benning for processing. I'm convinced the Army did that on purpose! ) .

Yeah, being in the driver position puts you in a precarious location !

My Bn Cdr, always attached my Mech Co. to a Tank Bn. I'm convinced he did that on purpose ! He must have wanted to make me the Tank Bn Cdr's problem ! LOL !