"M60 comparisons" Topic

Hello to all you ex M60 tankers out there. Has anyone made a comparison between the new Team Yankee M60's and the soon to be released PSC M60's?
I seem to remember the preview photo's of the PSC ones got 'panned' for missing/incorrect details on TMP by ex tankers.
Now the Team Yankee ones have been released, how do they compare?

I'm not a M60 tanker but I noticed on thing.. maybe. Didn't the M60A1 have a spot light? Mounted on the gun tube IIRC. The thing is in the kit but not part of the instructions for building the USMC M60A1. Is that an oversight or did the Marines do without? And if that is so then shouldn't the Marine 60 be without night vision? Or is there something subtle I'm not catching?

I wish PSC would do plastic M2/M3 Bradleys instead of what BF has already released in plastic. Overkill.

Makes sense though. The stuff that BF is putting out for TY has stats and the Brads don't. People, like me, want a cheaper alternative to the BF, so here comes PSC.

The T55 is a great example.

Five metal and resin T55 tanks from BF go for around $70 USD+ or a touch less than $15 USD per tank. The PSC kit has the same number of T55s, as a plastic kit, for half that price. That's a no brainer for someone who wants T55s to build an East German NVA army but doesn't have the cash to spend on the BF kits. In one swift move PSC has suddenly made NVA T55 forces something a regular Joe like me can afford. Heck, who has $140 USD laying around to build a very small and weak NVA T55 battalion with just 10 measly tanks?For the same price I can now field 20 PSC T55 tanks which is a much more reasonable force.

I'm sure when BF gets around to the Bradley that PSC will release a cheaper version too.

That was true for the T-55's and Leopard 1's which were resin/metal, but the BF M60's are already in plastic and the price difference will be far less this time. I'd be surprised if it's over $5 USD for a 5-tank platoon.

I bought the PSC T-55's and Leopards too, but I think BF has learned its lesson well and all future tanks will be released in plastic.

PSC might be better off pre-empting BF by releasing models before the rules are out.

Good input guys but I was looking for accuracy comparisons rather than price comparisons.

T-Gunner, I believe there was an upgraded M60A1 Passive with no search light, it was all passive IR (no thermal).

Thermal is passive IR

Tgunner is right in the 1970s & early 1980s we had huge searchlights Mounted on top of the main gun. This was true for the a1, A2 and 551 Sheridan.

Thanks guys, but still no comparisons of the two models for accuracy, or preference.

but still no comparisons of the two models for accuracy, or preference.

The BF M60's are just released but the PSC ones are not out yet so a comparison of the two is not possible at this time.

For determining whether the BF M60's are accurate, you can go here: link

I'm not a tanker so will have to reserve judgment.

I bought the PSC T-55's and Leopards too, but I think BF has learned its lesson well and all future tanks will be released in plastic.

From what BF has said, the resin East German T-55s were because they could only get so many plastic models into production at once (Volksarmee was apparently a bit of a spur of the moment release). Now that Vietnam's getting rereleased (with the North Vietnamese T-54s), they can finally find a spot for the plastic ones.

The real test will come with the Arab-Israeli Wars book due out a little later. That's supposed to include the Yom Kippur War. Will BF release plastic T-62s for it?

While thermal imagery is a form of Passive IR, the military differentiates between the two, Thermal works off Heat source only, and IR uses reflected light and not heat. The early IR scopes had illuminators, If memory serves me correctly the Searchlight on the M60A1 could switch from ambient to IR. These IR lights could be detected through another IR optical device. Before thermal was added to the M60A3 TTS and the M60A1's received passive IR, second gen IR. I believe thermal is third gen. Passive IR used ambient light without an illuminator. The old AN/PVS-5 night vision goggles were passive, but not thermal. You couldn't detect someone using them from the built in illuminators.

By the way, the early way we told the T64 apart from the T72 was which side of the main gun the IR illuminator was positioned.

Thanks 28mm Fanatic
I realised that, however a previous TMP post of photo's of the proposed PSC M60's got them pretty much panned by ex tankers for accuracy and detail.
I just wondered if the same ex tankers had viewed the new Battlefront ones and could comment regarding their accuracy and detail, and how the two compared.
I can't access the original TMP review of the PSC ones because the TMP search facility is down.
A whole page of responses to this, and none of them of any use. Very disappointed in you TMP family.

Very disappointed in you TMP family

Sorry to disappoint you. The BF plastics look fine to my untrained eyes, but I haven't seen any pics of the PSC sprues. Then again, I'm not an expert.

PSC is pretty good with correcting mistakes after getting feedback. They did that with the Leopard 1 IIRC which delayed its release a bit. So even if the pics you referred to were rife with mistakes, the final product should be accurate if PSC was made aware of the errors.

Hope PSC does early to mid-80's Brads next. While the Zvezda one is very nice, it's not for TY since it's the A2 variant with spaced armor that didn't appear until the late '80s.

I just got confirmation that PSC has shipped the M60. As soon as I get mine I plan to do a comparison for NoDiceNoGlory.com and the BF M60 does have issues. Most notable are the headlights,lack of tow cables, and antenna location mount.

Charles M.