[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k] [s4s] [vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/k/ - Weapons



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: M60 pretty.jpg (432 KB, 1642x1232)
432 KB
432 KB JPG
Were the M60 and its variants alright tanks?

Would they have been able to stand up to their soviet counterparts if shit hit the fan?
>>
>>34001563
The M60 was a great defensive tank. The later models with improved optics and electronics were an adequate match for the Combloc tracks.
>>
File: m60_tank_modernization-8.jpg (278 KB, 2000x1122)
278 KB
278 KB JPG
>>34001563
Well some nations love them so much they just don't want to (can't afford mainly) get rid of them, so I guess they stand up to the test.
>>
>>34001606

It's the same shit as the T-55's in other nations. Dress it up all you want, it's still outdated as fuck.

They're no longer good tanks, but they're all they got
>>
>>34001563

It's quite underappreciated. Good sights and fire control (probably its standout feature at time of entering service), mobile enough, reliable and while it was the BEST gun around, it was definitely a very good gun that would do the job asked of it.

If the Centurion was the "good solid tank" for the immediate post war era, then the M60 was the one that became the "good solid tank" after it.
>>
File: Chieftain.jpg (389 KB, 1280x853)
389 KB
389 KB JPG
>>34001636
>then the M60 was the one that became the "good solid tank" after it.

Fuck off mate, that belongs to the Chieftain, literally better in every way compared to the Patton
>>
M60s performed well vs. contemporary soviet counterparts in Israeli hands
>>
>>34001800

Switch the tanks (Israelis have soviet models, Arabs have American) And the Israelis still would come out on top.

When it comes to Arab militaries, it doesn't matter what you arm them with, you still have Arabs crews.
>>
>>34001800

yeah but that is against arabs who are hysterically incompetent
>>
>>34001627

A tank is still a tank, especially if you're just a dickhead with a rifle.
>>
File: ISIS with RPG.jpg (179 KB, 1200x900)
179 KB
179 KB JPG
>>34001837

Yeah, but now ever dickhead has man-portable anti-tank weapons
>>
>>34001865

That's why you have your own dickheads with rifles travelling with the tank
>>
>>34001563

It was a good enough tank, but it was taller than the Chieftain for no increase in performance and became completely redundant when the M1 Abrams showed it could do both the M103's job and its own.

I'd still rather be driving in it than the T-72, and the modernization done to some models gives it the continued ability to fight on the modern battlefield.
>>
>>34001563
Hands down the best mid Cold War tank fielded

M60>T-64>T-72>M48>T-55>Leopard 1>Chieftain>AMX-30
>>
>>34001673
>Chieftain was literally better in every way compared to the Patton
>What is the Leyland L60

Tank's not a tank if it can't move. Chieftain was a better bunker in every way.
>>
>>34003412
>>
>>34003412
I'd like to see some criteria for this lineup, especially the part that puts an M48 ahead of a Leopard 1 and Chieftain.
>>
>>34003182
>it was taller than the Chieftain for no increase in performance
it was very roomy though which reduces crew fatigue
>>
>>34003555

That molten steel puncturing the tall-as-fuck turret will fatigue the crew even more.

Besides, the Chieftain had great ergonomics, it wasn't a soviet tank.
>>
File: 0003.jpg (52 KB, 640x480)
52 KB
52 KB JPG
>>34001815
>>34001826
This. Israeli units equipped with Tirans and Ti-67s (captured and sometimes modified T-55s and 62s) smashed Arab units in the same way as the Patton and Centurion equipped ones.

Anyways, the M60 would be a solid contender for the T-55 and 62 lines which were the mainstay of Warsaw Pact armies until the end of the Cold War, but it would be in trouble if pitted against T-64s, 72s or worse, 80s.
>>
>>34005094
Wasn't the M1A1 developed to counter the T-72? That and Western Europeans getting mad at America for not keeping up with NATO tank development?
>>
>>34001673
hilariously bad armored hull + questionable turret without Stillbrew
and the engine a shit
only good about it was the gun
>>
>>34001636
>It's quite underappreciated
I'd say its overappreciated. Obsolete armour, obsolete gun, the lack of gun stabilisation for over a decade after it entered service and immense weight.
>>
>>34005094
Depends on e time frame.

People tend to forget that 105mm ammo made leaps in penetration in the late 70s and early 80s to the point that the necessity for a 120mm cannon on the M1 was pushed back as a later upgrade rather than being mandatory like the Leo2 had done. M774 and 833 made even Leopard 1s, M48A5s and Centurions a legitimate threat to modern armor of the time.

>>34005413
Not really, and all NATO forces had similar modernization cycles, that's why you saw the m60, chieftain and Leo1 upgrades showing up in the same time frame, same as the M1, Leo 2 and Challenger
>>
File: 1448445141315.jpg (32 KB, 494x619)
32 KB
32 KB JPG
>>34003412
>>
File: 1491287062562.jpg (108 KB, 800x415)
108 KB
108 KB JPG
The Patton Starship is the greatest tank ever made
>>
>>34001627
>It's the same shit as the T-55's
out classed the t-54/55 series in pretty much everything so bad example.
the higher silhouette was more than offset by the fact that the main gun could be depressed further in hull down positions meant less tank exposed...etc,etc.
>>
>>34005094
USMC M60A1s shit all over Republican Guard T-72s.
>>
File: m60 starship.jpg (790 KB, 1200x801)
790 KB
790 KB JPG
>>34005825
this
>>
>>34005959
Iraqi T-62s shit all over Iranian M60s, what are you trying to prove?
>>
>watch Sand Castle on netflix
>2003 Iraq
>americans have M60s and call them Abrams
>>
>>34006001
>it would be in trouble if pitted against T-64s, 72s
>>
File: 1493600246502.jpg (39 KB, 680x586)
39 KB
39 KB JPG
>>34003412
>T-64
>above T-72
>>
>>34006075
It would be in trouble against any tank designed in the last 60 years or so if crewed correctly.
>>
File: t-64 orcish beaty.jpg (937 KB, 2560x1920)
937 KB
937 KB JPG
>>34001563
no, the 64 was superior in every way.
>>
>>34001865
>>34002558

All this talk about dick is making me think about ICBMs....
>>
>>34005702
>implying the Patton was, in any way, better

the engine was better than the chieftain. that's about it
>>
File: a104.jpg (415 KB, 1566x853)
415 KB
415 KB JPG
>>34001673
>heavy
>unreliable
at least its got a slightly lower profile than the patton and a better gun but it still doesnt have anything on this beauty
>>
Centurion = T-55 of the Western world
Leopard 2 = T-72 of the Western world
M48 and M60 = get fucked
>>
File: horse sex.jpg (86 KB, 481x585)
86 KB
86 KB JPG
>>34003412
>M60>T-64
>T-64>T-72
>M48>T-55
>>
Can someone explain what makes the T-64 so good?

I see it brought up here in a positive light all the time. I also know it was never exported.
>>
>>34003412
>M60>T-64>T-72>M48>T-55
HAHAHAHAA
>>
>>34007209
1 st combined THICCest armor
125 mm
>>
>>34001563
I love those funky, stupid cupolas

What was the logic behind them?
>>
>>34003412
>M-48 above Chieftain and Leopard (AMX-excused due to powertrain issues)
>M-60 above T-72 (T-64 excused due to powertrain issues)
>>
File: t-64a (1).jpg (1.09 MB, 1200x933)
1.09 MB
1.09 MB JPG
>>34007209
Composite armour virtually impenetrable at that time, 125 mm smoothbore gun, autoloader, light weight and high power to weight ratio. It was space magic.
>>
>>34007209

It wasn't exported because it was both expensive and technologically sensitive, not because it was bad (at least in a theoretical 1v1 situation). It hasn't been updated as comprehensively as the T-72 (eg the T-72B3), so it isn't quite as true today as it was.
>>
>>34007433
It's also a smaller design with less room for improvement
>>
>>34001563
if you don't count the mobility and reliability and infantry support it's crap in a standing shootout against other tanks. even the t72 is better in a straight up shooting match. but the pattons were always a bit more about the other things a tank has to do beside shooting and taking a shot.
>>
File: ff245.jpg (54 KB, 500x500)
54 KB
54 KB JPG
>>34001865
I don't
>>
>>34007433

But that also means it never got the T-72's reputation as cannonfodder to more advanced tanks/guns.
>>
>>34007848
Arab operated T-72 monkey models butchered every western tank they met in combat up until 1991.
>>
>>34007878
that's because the t-72 is a mean son of a bitch for it's time. basic leopard2 would have eated it for breakfast with proper tactics of course. hell even the leopard1 could kill it under the right conditions like distance and stuff.
>>
>>34007898
Leo 2A4 is vastly outmatched by T-80U. Baseline Leo 2 barely matches T-72A, only surpassing it in turret HEAT protection.
>>
>>34001598
Didn't the M60 have a very short range due to the underpowered motor and its massive weight?
>>
File: M60 Patton.jpg (404 KB, 1600x900)
404 KB
404 KB JPG
>>34001673

It's funny, because I posted the thing about the M60 being underappreciated, I'm a bong, and the Chieftain is probably my favourite tank. So for you to freak out (and I suspect you're probably the same trigger happy guy that starts screaming whenever even put a slight against ramps) over that is very ironic given I'm normally the person arguing FOR the Chief.

Chieftain had a lot going for it, but it certainly didn't have that "it just works" type quality that defines the title of "good solid tank". Fantastic armour, great gun, spaceous for the crew, good fire control and even exaggerated issues that eventually got fixed may be true, but to pretend it didn't have issuesd with availability that keeps it out the "good solid tank" range is just being a shill.

>>34005825

I have a massive guilty pleasure for this thing.
>>
File: 1412534582399.png (73 KB, 250x195)
73 KB
73 KB PNG
>>34008053
>>
>>34008100

>when /k/ goes full blown delusional autist
>>
>>34003450
I'd guess Leo's paper-thin armour is one way to look at it

they are from different generations of tanks
that's like comparing F-86 and Mig-29
>>
>>34007393
NBC seal while operating the M2
>>
>>34001627
merida is ancient tho
>>
>>34008053
>T-80Us with K5
>a common sight
>>
>>34009099
More common than Leo 2A4.
>>
>>34008053
leos can kill any t-72 easily it's not even a contest muh nigga. better infrared and fire control and stabilizers, better mobility. the armor is not perfect but the t-72 ideally will never land a shot to begin with.
>>
>>34009727
If you compare modern Leos to obsolete T-72 models, then yes, probably.
>>
>>34009748
not modern, basic leo2 will be miles better at the same time. t-72 had like 800 passive infra leo2 had 4km
>>
>>34009764
Indeed, T-72 has to be not modern for a Leo 2 to kill it easily. Basic Leo 2 is barely a match to T-72A.
>>
File: 1472904102756.png (116 KB, 1600x1200)
116 KB
116 KB PNG
>>34003412
>T-55>Leopard 1
>T-64>T-72
>>
Official pre-1970 gen MBT rating

T-64>Leopard 1=M60A1>Chieftain>T-62=Centurion Mk.5/6/7>M48=T-54/55>literally anything else>Type-61
>>
>>34009941
>>34010041
>Leopard 1
Paper thin.
a
p
e
r

t
h
i
n
.
>>
>>34010112
The tank that can hit the first shot wins the engagement nine times out of ten. Leopards optics are top tier and maneuverability wise it outperforms all others in its timeframe. Its superb for defensive actions.
>>
>>34010164
It's paper thin and it allows any enemy tank to penetrate it from outstanding distances, while its 105 mm "gun" is likely to have problems to effectively return fire even at 1 km range.
>>
>>34010218
Why are you trying to duel Soviet tanks at 5 kilometers when the largest flat areas in central Germany rarely exceed 1 kilometer.
>>
>>34009841
you are retarded i bet you only look at the armor values and the guns. the two tanks are in different league. the t-72 is better than the m60 i will give you that, but that's it it's not even on the same page as an abrams or a leo2 even with no upgrades.
>>
>>34006091
Yes, actually. T-64 was the superior tank during the Cold War.
>>
File: 1290805892168.jpg (959 KB, 2072x1474)
959 KB
959 KB JPG
>>
File: 1313146312375.jpg (343 KB, 1024x683)
343 KB
343 KB JPG
>>
File: 1396802311382.jpg (2.65 MB, 3000x1982)
2.65 MB
2.65 MB JPG
>>
File: M60s inna woods.jpg (559 KB, 800x1204)
559 KB
559 KB JPG
>>
>>34010237
>the two tanks are in different league
If you are talking about obsolete T-72 variants in comparison to modern Leo 2, then yes, they are in a different league indeed.
>>
File: M60 x 3.jpg (391 KB, 1865x1252)
391 KB
391 KB JPG
>>
>>34010385
even the most modern t-72 is way obsolete compared to 1970-80 western tanks nigga
all eras do is make them sometimes harder to kill with a single shot it's still like shooting blind ducks on a pond.
>>
File: M60A1 USMC Rise.jpg (440 KB, 1280x960)
440 KB
440 KB JPG
The USMC rolled into Kuwait in 1991 in M60's.
>>
>>34010445
those eras on the m60 look like puke and garbage
really it's almost better to have it unprotected than desecrated it's curves like that.
>>
File: 1467990127415.gif (72 KB, 175x175)
72 KB
72 KB GIF
>>34003555
>it was very roomy though which reduces crew fatigue
>he thinks that making a tank taller is better than just getting manlets to crew the tank
laughing_OKB_engineers.gif
>>
>>34010417
Except it is of course vice versa and any western designs except for their latest modifications are vastly outclassed by the most recent T-72 variant.
>>
>>34010477
like i said you are retarded
obviously you could trick out a t-72 with western electronics to pose a real danger to post ww2 western tanks i guess but it never happened. russian electronics are just plain junk. i'm not even talking about the export crap here.
>>
>>34010466
>The Turks kept the tumor
>>
>>34010535
What you said is irrelevant. Naturally you are free to proceed with your shitposting, but the good part is it won't affect objective reality.
>>
>>34010237
>the t-72 is better than the m60 i will give you that
Not really, no.
>>
>>34007429
this is why t64 was better than m60.
>>
>>34010700
Yes really, yes. Late M60 barely match T-62.
>>
>>34008099
Like he said, defensive.
>>
>>34010727
For a T-62? You're pulling my leg. You're telling me that an M60A3 with thermal imaging isn't superior to a T-62? If you had said T-64 or T-80 sure, you might be able to argue that. But a T-62 or T-72? Hell no.
>>
>>34010803
By late I meant later development, not literally the latest variant, bad phrasing on my side. M60 is not even in the same league with T-64A, T-80 and T-72A. M60A3 might be considered somewhat a match to the early T-72 variants, but not much more than that.
>>
>>34001865
Is he having a boner?
>>
>>34001563

Is that tank from Benning? Looks familiar.
>>
>>34010680
objective reality is all russian tank except a handful of latest devs are literally blind slow and have shot armor garbage stabilizers sweep control and fcs reducing their effecive rate of fire to ridiculus depths by western standards.
>>
>>34011080
*shit armor
>>
>>34010904
If you're trying to compare the base M60 with the T-72A, of course it's not going to be its equal. If you instead use an M60A3 without a thermal sight, it's at least the T-72A's equal, but I'd argue it's superior. Especially on the defensive. I'd suggest that you're vastly overrating early T-72 tank performance.

Really, the M60 vs T-64 debate is the ultimate discussion of US vs Soviet tank design. The T-64 is optimized for the offensive, the M60 the defensive.
>>
It's all about the Magach 6b Gal BATASH
>>
>>34008099
You're thinking of the M46. The M60's drive train, transmission and entire locomotion assembly was much better. It had the standard 500km range of tanks of the day.
>>
>>34010477
top kek slavboo
>>
File: 1494112160196.jpg (237 KB, 598x792)
237 KB
237 KB JPG
>>34010236
>Why are you trying to duel Soviet tanks at 5 kilometers when the largest flat areas in central Germany rarely exceed 1 kilometer.

Said nobody ever. Most cities have at least like a 3+ mile diameter of clearing of purely fields and most effective ranges of the projectile to common armor penetration success and accuracy out of even a fin stabilized 120mm is only up to 3k. However HEAT ATGM's make it so that 4km is possible to accurately engage.
>>
File: t-64_35_of_62.jpg (1.06 MB, 2560x1920)
1.06 MB
1.06 MB JPG
>>34011096
>The T-64 is optimized for the offensive, the M60 the defensive.

That's an artificial distinction made only by you and outside of your fanfiction it's meaningless.
>>
File: t-64.jpg (1.03 MB, 2560x1920)
1.03 MB
1.03 MB JPG
>>34011408
>However HEAT ATGM's make it so that 4km is possible to accurately engage.

gun launched missles make that 7+km for the russian tanks. meaning you can engage stuff beyond the horizon...
>>
>>34011429
An artificial distinction? We can see it even in the basic shape of the tanks. The T-64 is as short as they could make it. This allows the T-64 to take advantage of defilade to its fullest, keeping the vehicle in cover in as many situations as possible in order to be able to close with the enemy without taking too much fires. This came with the tradeoff of being practically unable to make use of a significant portion of hull down positions due to the lack of gun depression. This is reversed in the M60. It has fantastic gun depression allowing it to make use of a wide variety of hull down positions, but its size (which admittedly is in part due to desiring higher crew comfort in expected CBRN conditions) prevents it from being able to advance in cover as much as the T-64.
>>
File: 724572346.jpg (322 KB, 1735x723)
322 KB
322 KB JPG
>>34011496
You're a funny goy.
>>
>>34011529

that does not an "Attack-MBT" make. And it turns out, gun depression and hull down positions are a useless meme.
>>
>>34008237

The line of thinking with the Leo 1 was that everything would penetrate it anyway. So roll with less armor for more mobility and not get hit.
>>
I'll just interject and say that the creation of the T-64, 72 and 80 were more of a result of politics between the different tank design bureaus and their influence in policy making, rather then the T-72 being specifically designed as a cheap version.
>>
>>34011578
That seems suspiciously like a nonargument.
>>
>>34011681
ok, pls illustrate the point of gun depression and hull down positions then? and compare them between the 60 and the Abrams. BC it seems to me the Abrams designers didn't think those things were important....
>>
>>34011710
>ok, pls illustrate the point of gun depression and hull down positions then
Is this a difficult concept to understand? Let's say there's a rise in the terrain. You, a tank, are driving up a rise. You want to shoot at a tank somewhere beyond it. In order to shoot the tank, you need your gun to be pointing in the right place. If you have less gun depression, you can't point your gun barrel down as far, meaning you have to drive farther up the crest in order to shoot.

And by the way, the Abrams and M60 both have the same gun depression. 10 degrees. T-64 only has 4 degrees. Yes, its significant.

If you don't know at least this much, you have no place discussing tanks.
>>
File: TANK-black_rhino_wip(2).jpg (1.45 MB, 8000x3398)
1.45 MB
1.45 MB JPG
why cant we get an aesthetic af offset tank gun?
>>
>>34011710
>BC it seems to me the Abrams designers didn't think those things were important....
the abrams has 1 degree MORE gun depression available than the m60...
>>
>>34012569
recoil stresses, for one
>>
>>34012825
The base M60. The upgraded versions both went up to a full 20 degrees instead of the M60's 19.
>>
>>34012938
you're talking about elevation. if we're talking m60a1/3, then they have the same depression as the abrams, which still obliterates your assertion that the abrams designers didn't think hull down positions were important. that's how the tank was going to be used ferchrissakes
>>
>>34012954
I meant depression, and added 10 to the numbers because I wasn't looking at the numbers, being retarded, and drunk.

And I'm the guy who brought up gun depression as a means to explain how Soviet style tanks were more designed as offensive weapons than defensive.
>>
>>34013000
>being retarded, and drunk.
we've all been there. anyway, off to bed now.
>>
>>34001815
That's not necessarily true. A few of the Arab armies has really well trained and fairly well equipped forces. A majority of the Israeli successes came because they either took the initiative in the war by starting it, or because they had taken up very good defensive positions. More than once the Arab tanks nearly broke the Israeli lines. Biggest problem was the Arab Air Forces had been decimated several times leaving a lot of their rear echelon forces under constant threat from the Israeli Air Force and artillery.

>>34008099
No. Aside from the M26 none of the American tanks were particularly under powered except for the first version of the M103. The M46, M47, M48, and M60 all had a similar power to weight near 16-18 hp/ton which slightly outclassed Soviet counterparts. However the M46, M47, and M48 all had fuel consumption issues because they still ran on petrol. The M60 was the first time diesel engines became standard on US tanks, which more than tripled the range of the tank.
>>
>>34010041
>pre-1970 gen MBT
>T-64

T-64 wasn't even deployed outside USSR until 1976 because of reliability issues

That is an almost TEN YEAR GAP between accepted for production and deployment
>>
>>34010992
kek
>>
>>34005825


>highimpactsexualviolence.jpg
>>
>>34010803
Well, a M60A3 is equivalent to a T-62AMV with the Volna FCS and Bastion/Sheksna missile... stuff should be compared in terms of dates of use, if you compare a 1976 T-64B to a M60A1 the former will eat the former alive, same as if you compare a M1A1 to the T-64B.

For example, the baseline T-64 and T-64A can be compared to the early Chieftains and M60s, and they're greatly superior, and these NATO tanks are superior to the T-55A or baseline T-62.

Or you can compare the T-64B, T-72A and T-80B to the M1 Abrams and the baseline Leo 2, and then it's a fair match.
>>
>>34012010

>learned everything he knows from world of tanks

Obviously T-64s in a defensive position can just drive further up the hill, or take a different positions, or make rough defensive positions using their dozer blades.

The primary advantage here isn't being hull down, but rather being stationary and prepared to engage targets from predetermined directions at known distances. There is a reason even Shermans smoked Panthers in defensive operations.. because if you set up an ambush to take advantage of all the strengths of your vehicles, and exploit all the weaknesses of the enemy vehicles, you're almost guaranteed to make the enemy bleed for it.

A tank that can -only- be effective in a defensive operation is just a shit tank.
>>
>>34003412
composite armoured tank is lower than a non-composite?

nigga wtf
>>
File: Upgraded M60-T.jpg (29 KB, 720x478)
29 KB
29 KB JPG
>>34010649
M-60T Sabra is a qt
>>
File: t-72 original model (1).jpg (223 KB, 1024x768)
223 KB
223 KB JPG
>>34011096
The very earliest T-72 models performance was indeed not that impressive compared to T-64A. But then again only a handful of hundreds were ever built so it's rather irrelevant. Baseline production T-72 already exceeded anything the US had, sale as T-64A before it. By the time T-72 was being rolled out M60 only began to receive gun stabilisation. And it never got composite armour or a better gun, forever stuck with rifled reminiscent of WWII. There can not be any M60 vs T-64 debate, only acknowledgement of complete and utter T-64 superiority.
>The T-64 is optimized for the offensive, the M60 the defensive.
If by optimisation you mean gun depression values, they are nothing but a consequence of both tanks' sizes and the implementation or absence of autoloader mechanism. "Optimisation for defence" didn't really take place until the introduction of M1 with its thick lower glacis and paper thin upper glacis, for all intents and purposes making it a self-propelled tank destroyer optimised for hull-down defence instead of a real MBT.
>>34013206
>T-64 wasn't even deployed outside USSR until 1976
T-64 was never deployed outside of USSR, dumbass.
>That is an almost TEN YEAR GAP between accepted for production and deployment
Get off moonshine, nigger.
>>34014515
"If we didn't have it it must have been redundant" mentality.
>>
File: 1476147823464.png (27 KB, 659x236)
27 KB
27 KB PNG
>>34014812
>T-64 was never deployed outside of USSR, dumbass.

Do you want to know more?
>>
>>34014846
Do you want to know what GSFG means?
>>
>>34014886
I think you are confusing "deployed" and "in service with"

and it doesn't invalidate my original point about it essentially not being a pre-1970 tank
>>
>>34014894
It does, since T-64A is a 1967 tank. By the 1976 T-64B was already a thing.
>>
>>34014914
>T-64A is a 1967 tank

and it wasn't practical enough to be actually expected to fight until nearly 10 years later.
>>
>>34014945
That's your assumption, not a fact. Fact is it was both accepted into service and began to be serially produced in the 60s, while 1976 is the year of T-64B introduction. Your mental gymnastics are irrelevant.
>>
File: 1991_M60.jpg (903 KB, 1686x1092)
903 KB
903 KB JPG
>>34001563

Good enough for the Marines to keep using
>>
>>34016276
they are kind of proud of using junks and old handmedowns from the army. it's their thing. and it still eats any improvised armor or afv they could encounter so i guess it's not useless.
>>
>>34016287
on the other hand i just can't commprehend why they didn't get the m60-2000s it would be perfect for them if they wanted pattons but also a proper modern mbt.
>>
>>34016292

Why not give them Abrams? We have over 2000 of those things sitting in storage doing nothing but collect dust.
>>
>>34006007
they called cobras apache
>>
File: Shun-the-myths.png (115 KB, 600x367)
115 KB
115 KB PNG
>>34011578
> I'll just say its a meme. That's a watertight argument.
>>
>>34014327
You ever play Steel Beasts? That's my teacher right there. A T-64B COULD drive up the crest to hopefully get its gun in place, but in the process, it exposes its hull to an unsatisfactory degree, and likely gets shot for its efforts, not to mention skylining itself beautifully to be easily seen by anyone watching. Yes, it does matter. It measurably decreases the amount of time one can make use of the position, because being so exposed you will die much more easily to return fire. Incidentally, this makes reverse slope defenses extremely effective against Soviet style tanks.

And yes, the Soviet tanks could try other things, however due to their design, they can't take advantage of other, probably superior options.

And if we go by the Soviet's own thoughts, they're not really going to be doing much defending from prepared positions anyways. Meeting engagements were everything to them.

>The primary advantage here...
Disagree somewhat with this. This is certainly a huge factor and plays into the biggest factor for success, but it is not said factor itself. That would be whomever spots the enemy first is likely to win the engagement. Studies have indicated this to be the predominant factor on who lives and who dies. If you're in a proper hull down position, you severely limit the amount of yourself you're showing, and if you've got the chance, you'll be going either turret down or completely down into a hide position, to keep yourself hidden until the moment you strike. This aids in the defense to a much greater extent. Imagine watching a ridge that you're advancing towards and suddenly out pop 4 turrets and start blowing you away. Contrast this with Soviet style, where the tanks would have to drive all the way up, exposing themself to observation and fires before they can fire back. And sure, ambushing is a very powerful tactic. However, if the engagement extends far beyond that initial shock, you're going to wish you were hull down.

Sweden says hi.
>>
>>34016276

The marines don't use M60s anymore and haven't done for at least 10 years.

It's just M1s now.
>>
What's the difference between a T72 and T90?
>>
File: 1473854229653.png (27 KB, 531x288)
27 KB
27 KB PNG
>>34015025
>That's your assumption

Also the """"assumption""""" of embedded senior tank engineers, minister of defence of USSR, minister of defence industries of USSR, assistant chief of GBTU, deputy chief of tank troops.....

they all had condition known as mental gymnastics according to anonymous idiot


T-64A delivered to troops in germany and T-64B accepted into service, both in Sep-1976
>>
File: Т-72А (4).jpg (2.37 MB, 1500x2250)
2.37 MB
2.37 MB JPG
>>34017163
Depending on model. Armor, tracks, gun (which also results in different ammo that you are capable to fire which also depends on your autoloader since some models have larger autoloader which allows longer rounds to be fired in your gun), FCS (which results in different sights, laser range finder etc), engines, turret etc.

You can see a visual difference between models even.
>>
>>34010992
If I had an RPG right now I would have a boner too
>>
File: 7543344 (1).jpg (202 KB, 1024x671)
202 KB
202 KB JPG
>>34003412
Objectively correct ordering would be:
T-72>T-64>Chieftain>M-60=Leopard 1>>AMX-30
T-55 and M-48 shouldn't be on there, both early Cold War.
>>
>>34017290
>>
File: Т-72БА (T-72BA) pic 1.jpg (1.64 MB, 2250x1500)
1.64 MB
1.64 MB JPG
>>34017306
>>
File: Т-72Б3 (T-72B3) pic 1.jpg (2.15 MB, 2250x1500)
2.15 MB
2.15 MB JPG
>>34017314
>>
File: T-90A pic 1.jpg (1.32 MB, 2250x1500)
1.32 MB
1.32 MB JPG
>>34017323
>>
File: T-72BA obr 1999.jpg (101 KB, 800x600)
101 KB
101 KB JPG
>>34017334
>>
>>34017305
>T-72 above T-64
Regardless of anything else, this triggers me.
>>
File: 1427213996722.jpg (2.02 MB, 2000x1227)
2.02 MB
2.02 MB JPG
>>34017350
and so on.
>>
>>34017354
Why though? It was less reliable and the armor was thinner.
>>
File: 1307327491514.png (42 KB, 500x281)
42 KB
42 KB PNG
>>34007841
>>
>>34017277
This seems like a good source of reference material anon. Happen to have a .PDF or a name?
>>
>>34017538
Steven J. Zaloga - T-64 Battle Tank
>>
>>34017277
And? Your quote only confirms a widely known fact that T-64A was due to its innovativeness a problematic tank that kept being improved. It does not change the fact that it is a 1967 tank.
Also yes, post the PDF, looks like an interesting read.
>>
>>34017163
Baseline T-90 is T-72 with T-80U electronics. T-90A has and entirely different turret borrowed from the semen demon Object 187.
>>
>>34017290
>some models have larger autoloader which allows longer rounds to be fired in your gun
Specifically T-72B3.
>>
>>34017546
Damn, I thought it might have been one of the untranslated slav books that I'm slowly learning to read.

Thanks anon!
>>
>>34006933
>no turret
>superior

I'm drunk off my ass I recognize the flaw. What is your excuse?
>>
>>34017615
Swedes' excuse was that western tanks didn't have gun stabilisation at all or had a shitty one, so why bother if all it was ever supposed to do was defending Swedish swamps. Naturally rotten fish eaters forgot about air forces. Strv 103 is probably one of the shittiest tank designs in history. Nice self-propelled anti-tank gun for its time though.
>>
>>34007209

Initially, the T-72 was designed as a cheaper version of the T-64, but on the T-72B and T-64BB they were equal in functionality. The T-64 was originally a multi-layer armor with corundum filler.
>>
>>34005985
>>34005825
Would've been better without that mile high cupola, tbqh. There's a reason they ended up taking them off the M60A3s.
>>
>>34017615
To be a bit less dickwaving and more explanatory, normal tank like T-55 could aim at a target and shoot on the move, only having to stop for a very precise shot. Strv had to stop and stay a sitting duck UNTILL it aims at a target and makes a shot. It had extremely good suspension, bit it was not even nearly as good as having a turret.
>>
>>34017556
So you accept the fact of a nearly 10 year gap between accepted for production and deployment, and that during that period the T-64 was essentially unusable?

If you are really going to compare it against tanks from the 60s maybe you should rank it factoring in its 91231249 mechanical failures, propensity to light itself on fire upon starting or maybe just not rank it all because no tank of the 60s, during the 60s, would actually face it.

>>34017577

you could try: M. Caeнкo, B. Чoбитoк - Ocнoвнoй бoeвoй тaнк T-64

its in russian but there are english captions. The Zaloga books is a good primer, but imo focuses a bit too heavily on the development politics

>>34017712
not "cheaper" in sense of money, actually T-64 is cheaper. but MoD wanted T-64 with different engine because 5TDF engine was unreliable disaster at the time and could only be produced in 1 factory (not enough to meet demand during wartime)

T-72B is later technology than T-64BV and far superior in almost everything except FCS
>>
File: 354_a387.jpg (35 KB, 400x267)
35 KB
35 KB JPG
I don't care what anyone says.

The T-62 is the best looking Soviet tank until the T-80U
>>
>>34017712
>T-72 was designed as a cheaper version of the T-64
Not cheaper, but rather able to be produced at a larger number of factories. The main reason was that if a war breaks out T-64 production numbers, specifically its engine, were not even nearly satisfactory. For peace time it was not a concern.
>T-72B and T-64BB they were equal in functionality
T-72B was vastly superior due to small upgrade capability of T-64A and subsequently a decision to rather concentrate efforts on T-72.
>>
>>34017775
>the fact of a nearly 10 year gap between accepted for production and deployment
No such fact exists.
>T-64 was essentially unusable
Problematic due to innovativeness does not mean unusable.
>5TDF engine was unreliable disaster
They fixed it is like 5 years IIRC. The problem was rather that only one factory could supply the engine which in the case of war was unacceptable.
>>
File: t-80bv (1).jpg (166 KB, 1024x768)
166 KB
166 KB JPG
>>34017779
"No". T-80BV has supreme aesthetics. Look at these lines. Look at them. If it doesn't make you hard chances are you're gay.
>>
File: download.jpg (9 KB, 225x225)
9 KB
9 KB JPG
>>34017831
>putting ERA on top of ERA on your turret instead of molding it appropriately

T-62 doesn't need a pushup bra and makeup to look beautiful.
>>
File: t-72b1 triple era (1).jpg (184 KB, 800x533)
184 KB
184 KB JPG
>>34017848
>ERA on top of ERA
Ukrainian tier.
>>
File: t-62m (1).jpg (90 KB, 1024x652)
90 KB
90 KB JPG
>>34017848
>T-62 doesn't need a pushup bra
Yes,it rather needs brows. Brezhnev's brows.
>>
>>34017859
The funny thing is that in the mid 80s, Hughes started development on a triple warhead TOW variant to defeat rumored "dual layer" ERA that ended up being heavy ERA.
>>
File: almost.jpg (31 KB, 266x340)
31 KB
31 KB JPG
>>34017865
>image says T-55
>filename says T-62
>>
File: t-62m.jpg (705 KB, 3000x1895)
705 KB
705 KB JPG
>>34017865
>t-62m
>It's obviously T-55
My bad, fucked up the file name apparently.
>>
>>34017163

T-90 was originally called the T-72BU, thicker armor, based on the difference between the turret made from welded sheets of armor, but not by casting, the fire control system from T-80U
>>
File: t-72b1 triple era (2).jpg (265 KB, 1280x957)
265 KB
265 KB JPG
>>34017870
Didn't know Americans were developing triple warhead ATGM. We had this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/125_mm_smoothbore_ammunition#3VBK27.3F.2F3BK29M
but I never really grasped why. I mean Americans barely even use ERA.
>>
File: object 188.jpg (204 KB, 1121x579)
204 KB
204 KB JPG
>>34017885
>T-90 was originally called the T-72BU
No, "T-72B Improved"
>thicker armor
Share a source on this one, except for ERA which was a part of T-72B1989 anyway.
>,based on the difference between the turret made from welded sheets of armor, but not by casting
Welded turret was a part of Object 187 semen demon development and did not become a part of T-90 until about 10 years after its introduction.
>the fire control system from T-80U
This one is correct. It also initially had a 2A66 gun, but it was dropped because it would require an entirely different ammunition.
>>
File: 4358929_original.jpg (452 KB, 2048x1365)
452 KB
452 KB JPG
T-72B3 model 2016
>>
File: t-62 in georgia (1).jpg (1.16 MB, 3264x2448)
1.16 MB
1.16 MB JPG
>>34017873
I already fixed myself and they both used Brezhnev's brows anyway. What is interesting is that T-62 remaining in service and participating in 888 didn't have them.
>>
File: DSC00920.jpg (1.59 MB, 2272x1704)
1.59 MB
1.59 MB JPG
There are a couple M68 pattons in my general area on display (Gutted, barrels filled, etc.) but man these things are fucking huge.

You really can't tell the scale from pictures.

Not only are they over 10 feet tall but they're really fucking wide.

Anyways, American tanks were boring through all of tank history but nobody's ever said the patton wasn't effective. Hell, I think that some third world countries still use Pattons, much like they still use T-54/T-72 tanks.
>>
File: t-72b3m.jpg (443 KB, 2048x1365)
443 KB
443 KB JPG
>>34017966
It's always cool to see countries pushing designs to the limit, like it was with M60A3.
>>
File: 4360007_original.jpg (622 KB, 2048x1365)
622 KB
622 KB JPG
T-72B3 model 2016
>>
File: f0205060_51ef0a4d04bc9.jpg (522 KB, 1600x1060)
522 KB
522 KB JPG
>>34017996
>American tanks were boring through all of tank history
"No". The amount of upgrade utility in M1 was really stupendous. Americans just skipped a generation with the cesspit that MBT-70 development was.
>Hell, I think that some third world countries still use Pattons
They do. Some even upgrade them if they have money. On a side note, there was this Hellcat turret on T-55 chassis, don't really remember who did this, but it's cool nevertheless.
>>
>>34017996

In the Russian army, all T-54/55 and T-62 were withdrawn from the armament, instead of them, T-72A is used from warehouses.
>>
>>34017900
It's simple really and it's two fold (technically three fold I guess):

The Soviets while having no shortage of tungsten and later DU, never really invested as much into the tooling required for using such heavy materials throughout the cold war until the mid-late 80s. So after a while it ended up being a case of "We could focus on APFSDS rounds, or we can just keep using HEAT based projectiles, they have the added benefit of being undefeatable (for most of the Cold War), so lets just keep on using HEAT. Our doctrine already reflects it after all." This doesn't mean that they lacked the capability to do it, just that it was seen as very, very low priority. Whereas in the west it was considered the opposite. You saw the same thing in WWII for example where the Soviets used aluminium in their tank engines, whereas the Germans thought it was simply ut of the question as, even though they produced more aluminum than the Soviets, had completely different priorities for that material.

Another factor was that armored doctrine favored HEAT munitions at ranges beyond 1km due to a generally lower velocities and chamber pressures that Soviet guns allowed (as well as penetrator length issues with autoloaders once it was determined that autoloaders were the future). So there you have a reason and capability to just keep on using HEAT for most work - this lead to lots of interesting designs, notably the 3BK29M you posted, as well as experimenting with DU liners instead of the standard Copper.

And lastly, more warheads in tandem, in general, equals greater penetration as it weakens the armor for the next charge.
>>
>>34018058
The Abrams is such a boring tank though.
>>
>>34018058
>On a side note, there was this Hellcat turret on T-55 chassis, don't really remember who did this, but it's cool nevertheless.

I want to say it was a South American country. On a related note however...
>>
File: t-72b1 & t-72b3.jpg (204 KB, 1915x951)
204 KB
204 KB JPG
>>34018062
>T-72A is used from warehouses
T-72A, albeit still can be found, are in really museum piece numbers in the middle of nowhere. It's T-72B that you are thing of, and they are being actively replaced with B3 as of now.
>>
>>34018103
Fun fact, you can buy a working T-72 for something like $30,000.
>>
File: 1491597698187.jpg (88 KB, 550x539)
88 KB
88 KB JPG
>>34010466
>>
>>34018010

This is not the limit of modernization, you can install a turel from T-90AM, a gun 2A82 from Armata , install an automatic transmission, an auxiliary power unit from the T-72B2 project Rogatka, Install fire control system "Kalina"
>>
>>34018083
>It's simple really and it's two fold (technically three fold I guess):
I'm drunk and I laughed like a fucking horse.
>"We could focus on APFSDS rounds, or we can just keep using HEAT based projectiles, they have the added benefit of being undefeatable (for most of the Cold War), so lets just keep on using HEAT. Our doctrine already reflects it after all."
I don't think it was about being undefeatable, I believe it was rather due to just like you said a doctrine that favoured destroying tanks in Europe less than the utility HE-FS provided in urban combat.
>generally lower velocities and chamber pressures that Soviet guns allowed
Not quite sure about that, pic related.
>as well as experimenting with DU liners instead of the standard Copper
Honestly I don't recall copper. Wolfram sure, much rarely uranium. But copper?
>more warheads in tandem, in general, equals greater penetration
I was under impression multiple warheads serve specifically the purpose of triggering the ERA before the main warhead hits the target. Am I mistaken?
>>
>>34018096
It's a matter of taste. I'm in love with our (soviet/russian) tanks, but M1A1+ looks really nice.
>>34018098
>Serbian Armored Train
You will never remove chechens ridingan armoured train. Why live? ;_;
>>
>>
File: armoured train baikal.jpg (207 KB, 1180x679)
207 KB
207 KB JPG
>>
File: Tank physics.jpg (333 KB, 1920x1080)
333 KB
333 KB JPG
>>34018222
>2017
>Not being a Wehraboo

It's too bad they ditched the glorious Wehrmacht designs when they made the Leopard 2, even the Leopard 1 was passable.
>>
File: armoured train.jpg (298 KB, 1345x798)
298 KB
298 KB JPG
>>
File: 11jpg_5462966_25954420.jpg (445 KB, 1920x1080)
445 KB
445 KB JPG
>>34018103

In Siberia and on the border with China is still in the service of the T-72A
>>
File: t-72b2 (4).jpg (121 KB, 1024x768)
121 KB
121 KB JPG
>>34018119
Proofs? I'm pretty sure I recall seeing buying even a functional BTR or MTLB will cost you at least $50k.
>>34018195
I said pushing to the limit, not achieving it.
>T-72B2 project Rogatka
Wait a sec, are you trying to make me sad again? All this thing needed was modern FCS and autoloader fitted for BWR (big wolfram rods) that B3 received.
>>
>>34018246
>2017
>Being a wehraboo
Off with you fucking nadsi.
>>34018256
Yes, this is exactly the video I was referring to. It is really an odd occasion when you can witness operational T-72A.
>>
>>34018293
Well it looks like prices went up since last time I checked, http://www.mortarinvestments.eu/products/tanks-2/t-72-42#currency=USD

I know you can buy am AMX 13 for roughly 30,000, or at least you could last year.

I really want to own a tank, honestly, I would just live in it, so it'd be worth.
>>
File: uaz-469 drift.jpg (57 KB, 600x402)
57 KB
57 KB JPG
>>34018332
http://atvbtr.ru/catalog/Prodazha_BTR_vseh_modelej_i_ih_cena_73/BTR-80_256.html
110k bucks for a BTR-80 here. I suppose it depends greatly on where you buy it. I had a youtube video of a Lincoln limousine tier BTR from Ukraine (IIRC) passing by, but unfortunately I lost it. Maybe someone has it here? Thing was suberb, with I had one. Although fuel consumption makes me a bit more sceptic. UAZ469 would probably be more fitting.
>>
>>34018368
Mortarinvestments has an AMX13 for $62k, which is quite a bit more than the one I found last year but yeah, it really depends where you buy it.

There's a US based site that sells the same things as the other sites, except 2-3x more expensive. I honestly think they buy them from the EU sites, then resell them.
>>
>>34018395
My friend from LA told me it is an immense pain in the rectum to buy UAZ, Niva and stuff alike in the US, even if you order the delivery from Canada. I suppose it extrapolates to APCs, IFVs and all the more so tanks too? I ask because in Germany they don't seem to have as much restrictions, I see people on Nivas and Ladas on almost daily basis,
>>
File: NlHBT.jpg (21 KB, 360x259)
21 KB
21 KB JPG
>>34018293

T-72B3 was originally a cheaper version of the T-72B2 project Rogatka
>>
>>34018438
Dont Germany have eastern block stuff by default thus lowering the price and not having a damn sea between them and their eastern european seller?

They were divided by two 17 years ago while having alot of eastern stuff.
>>
File: t-72b2 (1).jpg (235 KB, 1200x789)
235 KB
235 KB JPG
>>34018470
I am well aware of that. Still I believe that if they didn't have money to go with Object 187 sperm demon back then they at least could go with T-72B2. B3 is nice, sure, but B2 could be so much better right away. I mean look at that Nakidka. LOOK AT IT.
>>
>>34018489
I live deep in Western Germany. I mean sure in former GDR it is more common, but still. Sure it is likely to be the same 5 dudes in the entire town that I keep seeing, but still, from talking to my relatives I believe native Germans praise Niva for its simplicity and at the same time road worthiness.
>>
>>34016690
i assume they would have them if they wanted them. probably the pattons low maintenance and cheaper milage suits them better.
>>
>>34018545
IIRC it was exactly the case. Do American marines use M1A1 by now? I know it's not M1A2.
>>
File: Bs9OZxZK804.jpg (284 KB, 1280x721)
284 KB
284 KB JPG
>>
File: 9k720 iskander-m (3).jpg (107 KB, 1920x1080)
107 KB
107 KB JPG
>>34018649
>>
>>34018649
How the fuck are their privates going to sweep rocks in a motorpool that isn't even paved?
>>
>>34005826
T-55AM outclasses the M60 variants in just about every way, maybe except avaliable APFSDS ammo but that seems like a pretty moot point anyway.
>>
>>34001606
Do my eyes deceive me, or did they replace the special snowflake .50 MG for an M2?
>>
>>34001865
>but now ever dickhead has man-portable anti-tank weapons
Well WOWEE, those AT4s and LAWs sure are threatening
>>
>>34017677
>so why bother if all it was ever supposed to do was defending Swedish swamps
>all it was ever supposed to do was defending
Except that's not true, you uncritical memer. The Swedes' own doctrine said it was a tank, to be used in all the ways tanks are used. Including frontal attacks and deep counterattacks.

>substitute noturret with muhfuelconsumption and some retard is saying the exact same meme, only about the Abrams
>>
>>34019673
Why would they need sweep rocks?
>>
File: garrison.jpg (106 KB, 1050x682)
106 KB
106 KB JPG
>>34019847
>Why would they need sweep rocks?
neverserved pls
>>
>>34017900
>but I never really grasped why. I mean Americans barely even use ERA.
Isn't fighting Russian-made equipment more common than fighting American-made equipment? Look what conflicts the USSR/Russia has been in since WW2
>>
>>34019900
We can't all be Americans famalam.

Are you proud of pointless tasks?
>>
>>34001563
M60s with m21 computer will out shoot any slavshit, that includes the most modern shit
>>
>>34010477
The latest tanks are comparable to the latest tanks?
Holy fuck it's almost like the designs have evolved over time to stay competitive!
Seriously. And objectively, there is a reason we call them peer conflicts. The only reason we can't prove whose tanks are best is because it's a close match that devolves into a nuclear slugfest by whoever loses. And most of us don't want that. So keep shitposting friendo, we'll never know the answer without the world ending.
>>
>>34020246
Oops. Forgot to take off the trip. My bad
>>
>>34006007
>Welcome to low budget films.

Didn't they pass off Pershing's as panzers in the longest day or something.
>>
>>34019975
I was in quite possibly the worst infantry battalion in the marine corps where they sent all of their undesirables and never have I ever had to do anything remotely like this.
>>
>>34017120
the marines got rid of the last of their m60a1s by 1996. it's been 21 years, to be exact
>>
>>34017371

Armor on the T-72 Ural is worse than T-64A. T-72 got the better turret on T-72A, which is a 1980 tank.
>>
>>34020392

If memory serves they still had a few running up until 2005, but those have all been succesfully replaced by M1 variants. The US M60 fleet has largely been liquidated to make room for the Abrams stockpile, with everything that they could being sold to ME countries.
>>
File: 1424806115905.jpg (59 KB, 610x480)
59 KB
59 KB JPG
>>34006933
>>
>>34001815
Why are arabs and even africans such shit soldiers?
>>
>>34021300

Africans aren't shit tier, or rather they are bad at conventional warfare for a different reason, that being that they usually have poor to non-existant supply lines and thus tend to wear themselves down rapidly in pitched engagments. Mechanized units tend to be the first to go because no fuel.

Arabs just stink at war, period.
>>
>>34019842
I am unironically interested, show me a single occasion where Swedes' doctrine qualifies Strv103 as an MBT. Fot all ittents and purposes it was an SP AT gun.
>>
>>34019912
For American made equipment, yes. Not sure if I know a single occasion where Soviet made equipment fought Soviet made equipment except for china-ussr border.
>>
>>34018570
All Marine Corps M1s are standardized to the M1A1HC varaint which adds 2nd gen depleted uranium armor. That was in the 90s so its probably around A1AIM(s) or A2
>>
>>34021300

WInston Churchill had some well-informed opinions as to why Arabs suck at war. Go ahead and give his writings some study.
>>
>>34018570
marines have always used (and continue to use) the m1a1
>>
>>34020246
>The latest tanks are comparable to the latest tanks?
>Holy fuck it's almost like the designs have evolved over time to stay competitive!
The thing is some still follow rancid mccarthian propaganda. American tanks are nice, except for the cesspit that MBT-70 was, soviet/russian tanks are nice, except for the cesspit that 90s fall of the ussr was.
>>
>>34021794
You mean M1A1HA?
>>34021805
>Wtf is M60 is Kuwait?
I'm pretty sure it was the very last time M60 saw combat with the US. ERA, logistics, etc.
>>
>>34021840
i didn't mean always for fucking eternity. the marines had tanks before 1980. the only major abrams subtype the corps has used is the m1a1. they didn't use the m1. they didn't use the ipm1. they don't use the m1a2. christ.
>>
>>34021861
Calm down anon, that's what I was asking about: if the Marines still use M60 like they did in 1991 or if they completely transferred to M1A1.
>>
>>34021861
If you take the time to write properly perhaps people will understand you better, did you think about that?
>>
>>34021892
apologies, my nigga. i misinterpreted you. the marines got rid of their m60a1s by 1996
>>
>>34021902
yep. i can certianly see how confusion can be generated by answering a question about what types of abrams the marines have used by "they always used the m1a1"! silly me!
>>
File: 1483735563495m.jpg (173 KB, 1024x576)
173 KB
173 KB JPG
>>34021840
M1A1HA was first generation and was mostly equipped in the Army. The Marines didn't get DU until The Heavy Common, which aimed at standardizing The M1 fleet in both services. HC made the Abrams more digitalized among a few other tiny things, which is why the M60 was still in service into the 90s, because the Marines didnt have enough money to upgrade the whole Abrams fleet cause of muh cold war budget slash

>BEST paint scheme coming through
>>
File: f0083218_51f5df04b3815.jpg (1.91 MB, 3329x2211)
1.91 MB
1.91 MB JPG
>>34021905
Oh, I didn't know the exact date, thanks. Bad phrasing on my side anyway, sorry.
>>
>>34021940
it's all good. we niggas
>>
>>34021935
Is there anything I could read on HC? It is literally the first time I hear about this designation.
>BEST paint scheme coming through
Oh god fucking damn it I feel your feels. Russian to (I suppose) American, this paintjob is superb. It is too sad they apparently don't make it anymore. Seeing M1 in Baltics with desert camo just fucking hurts.
>>
File: 1494384239225.jpg (62 KB, 500x291)
62 KB
62 KB JPG
>>34021987
I have .PDF of the Abrams but I'm on mobile so I can't access it. Wikipedia is always a good place to get base knowledge, but its Wikipedia.

Also I forgot to add, some USMC M1A1s only got the 2nd gen DU Armor so were designated M1A1HA+ because it only added armor, which I feel where a lot of confusion comes from with this subject.

God I miss European oriented color schemes. So fucking happy the Tan is FINALLY going away
>>
>>34021300

They don't have a culture or society capable of training or organizing a modern military force effectively.

Most middle eastern states just sort of inherited some sort of colonial system which relied upon a capable outside government doing all the organization for them. They just haven't really put together a capable replacement since then.

It's difficult to jump forward a couple hundred years of organization and training in a generation.
>>
>>34022063
Feel free to post it if this thread is still alive.
>God I miss European oriented color schemes
Do they still have it in Germany or is it all desert sand by now?
>>
>>34005825
Uber, is that you again
>>
>>34021935
i don't think ive ever seen an abrams in a flat green before, only in the >>34022221 tricolor like this, that green looks awesome
>>
>>34021935
>>BEST paint scheme coming through
aka green?
>>
>>34023560
a black abrams would scare the hajis shitless tho
>>
>>34018246
I always thought pre 2a5 leopard 2's looked vaguely like Tigers.
>>
>>34001563
M60 and M60A1 were decent tanks when they were introduced, but the M60A1 remained the mainstaay of US armor far, far past its prime.

M60A2 was AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... fuck, let's just not talk about it, please.

M60A3 was a kinda decent, but unspectacular stopgap upgrade when we realised that a 1963-vintage tank model wasn't too hot anymore in the late 70's and nobody had a clue how much longer we'd ahve to wait for the M1.
>>
File: M60 Starship.jpg (316 KB, 1429x1133)
316 KB
316 KB JPG
>>34026475
>M60A2 was AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... fuck, let's just not talk about it, please.

Talk shit get hit
>>
>>34026475
>AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Autism?
>>
File: Bosniak T-55 Hellcat.jpg (73 KB, 600x331)
73 KB
73 KB JPG
>>34018058
>On a side note, there was this Hellcat turret on T-55 chassis, don't really remember who did this, but it's cool nevertheless.

One-off improvisation by Bosnians.
>>
So then what do you guys think about the upcoming Raytheon and L3 upgrades to the M60 then?
>>
>>34001563
No the m60 tanks would slamfire if you chambered a round
>>
>>34026970

If you were an Arab crew and didn't follow proper SOP, sure?
>>
File: 1473917835726.jpg (241 KB, 1800x1196)
241 KB
241 KB JPG
>>34023560
OD Green if we're being specific

Have a Lewd up skirt shot
>>
>>34026970

Literally no tank gun ever fielded has had this problem as a built-in design flaw.

If you're an idiot, your gun is broken, or if both of those statements are true, then maybe a tank's gun might fire unintentionally, but if you literally cannot chamber a round without firing it then that isn't going to make it off the drawing board.
>>
>>34027097
>>34028137
Guys, I think he's just shitposting.
>>
what are some good websites to learn about the m60 and american tanks? i'm better with german and soviet stuff
>>
>>34028751
>https://www.youtube.com/user/TheChieftainWoT/videos
I know the game is shit, but the videos are pretty good.

Start here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNjp_4jY8pY&t=2260s then go https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ho8TU_JpoI
>>
File: PochNuk.png (351 KB, 597x384)
351 KB
351 KB PNG
>>34005825
>>
File: hqdefault.jpg (9 KB, 480x360)
9 KB
9 KB JPG
>>34026624
>MFW The stock T55 turret / gun sucked so much that the Bosnians needed to swap it for the 76mm gun from the hellcat

Slavboos and Vatniks BTFO




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.