Why the fuck was the M60 so big? And are there truly thousands of them in storage?
It's not quite so big without the retarded commander turret.Part of the reason is that the driver is not in the 'supine', laying down position, which makes the hull taller than it needs to be.The Abrams hull is notably more squat.
>>61460048The M60 hull is tall because of the huge Continental AVDS engine and it's associated cooling deck and transmission assembly. The modifications to the Cheiftan hull that fit the Rolls Royce V engines were originally developed because Canada, Israel, and Australia requested a Chieftain powered by the AVDS 1790 following the success of Centurions powered by the AVDS V12. Canada and Australia ended up cancelling those in favor of the Leopard, and Israel got locked out of buying British tanks, but Leyland/Vickers had already done the engineering so instead stuck the Rolls Royce engine in and called it the Shir, which eventually became the Challenger.
>>61459959>And are there truly thousands of them in storage?No and there haven't been for years.
>>61460048>>61460107Refreshingly informative
>>61459959M60 isn't big, it's just T-62 that's manlet sized.
>>61460184WTF did they all go?
>>61461542A few went to thirdies, a few were scrapped for metal, and most went eternal voyaging as artificial reefs.
>>61461521>T-62is the 62 for how many meters the turret flies into the sky?
>>61461553>The Artificial Reef Program used four types of obsolete Army armored vehicles as artificial reef materials off the New Jersey coast. These were cleaned at local military bases, loaded onto barges for transport, and pushed off at their final destination. Once the Army had disposed of its excess inventory, the program ceased, around 1999. The New Jersey Artificial Reef Program has sunk almost 400 tanks so far.>There are 3,000 to 6,000 surplus M48 and M60 tanks on Army depots around the country, military officials said. Destined for scrap heap, tanks were donated to Alabama and Florida this year to determine whether they could be used as artificial reefs
>>61461542The M60 factory tooling was actually sold to Turkey which is why you see them use their hulls for everything. New-production M60s were made in this century.>>61461569This was the fate of the bulk of the Sheridans.
>>61459959As nice as the M60 is, I prefer the good old M48. Looks cooler
>>61459959
>>61462968
>>61462225>not my problem
>>61461569About 1,000 M48s and 900 M60s were turned into artificial reefs. A couple thousand of them are still sitting in old depots waiting to be REEF'D. I personally think they should just have the Turks refit the old hulks and send them to Ukraine.
>>61461569>>61462225>>61466541Grim, how many drivers did they lose driving them into the depths?
>>61459959Question did the Marine Corps have any Abrams during the Gulf War or only M60's?
>>61462381I've wiggled beneath and climbed on top of an M48.It definitely has a space-age Mars rover, MRAP-ey hull.
I am on a lazy quest to find out where and which company casts the new hulls.In the meantime, to have an idea of just what an M60 is underneath all the systems, here's a hull from US production.
>>61461569That shit is evil beyond comprehension.
>>61466700The tank did its job, newer ones can take over now. Its new crew are a little different but they're just as protected by its armour as the old ones were. A peaceful retirement under the sea
>>61466684Is that a Landspeeder?
>>61466637I think they were still in the process of acquiring Abrams and had both in service at the time.
>>61466684>I am on a lazy quest to find out where and which company casts the new hulls.Probably Roketsan or FNSS. Roketsan is the company upgrading the M60s with the modern turret and FNSS has a history of taking older foreign designs and building crazy new designs off of them. The ACV15/ACV19/Kaplan are all just extremely overdeveloped M113 derivatives at their core. IMI, now Elbit in Israel also used to be able to fabricate M60 hulls. They are the company that helped develop the first localized updates for the Turkish M60s with the Turkish company Aselsan so it's possible that the Israelis sold them their machining as Israel was totally divesting from the M60 and going all in on the Merkava in the mid 2000s right when Turkey was starting to really get into making new M60 projects. Honestly any one of those companies probably could build new M60 hulls. There is nothing truly hard to build about them. Continental still makes the AVDS 1790 engines too, now in output variants of 1500hp+.
>>61461569>>61462225>The government doesn't want you to know, but the tanks on the bottom of the sea are free!Maybe i should start listing tanks on ebay, "buyer to collect"
>>61459959>>61462381What were the performance statistics for the post WW2 but pre-abrams cold war tanks like? Don't hear about the mall that often even though they did see their fair share of combat right?
>>61459959Beeg tank smol road wheelsSmol tank beeg road wheelswat da
>>61466684Cool photo. Sauce.
>>61466802Do you know if the Marines did deploy any Abrams in the Gulf War or only just their M60's.
>>61466826Is it cost effective in any way to make new M60 hulls? Seems like the turk upgrades, if they ever go anywhere would be useful just because they're upgrades to existing machines
>>61470073>What were the performance statistics for the post WW2 but pre-abrams cold war tanks like?the main ones were the M48 and M60 for the USM47 was made in large numbers but never saw combat in US service, and was mostly just given/soldin terms of paper stats, the M60A1 had 4in thick frontal armor at a steep angle, presenting 10in of line-of-sight protectionthe turret had a more variable thickness and slope, and would average out at 10in from the front but certain parts of it could exceed that at optimal anglesthis essentially provides protection exceeding the king tiger (4in at a less steep angle on the front hull) in a smaller tank105mm gun with APDS could easily defeat T-55s and T-62s at 2km, early APFSDS would struggle with T-64 or T-72 frontal armor but otherwise gave a better chance than APDS>Don't hear about the mall that often even though they did see their fair share of combat right?israelis used the M48s and M60s a fair bit, along with the centurionwith the 105mm gun installed, they could take out egyptian T-62s easilythough they never faced the T-72, the soviets were worried that the M111 ammo they developed for the 105mm would punch clean through the front armor of the T-72 ural-1 and hastily increased their armor
>>61472851ntaYou seem like the anon who explained the T-series armor evolution almost a week ago.Even though I haven't gotten back to revising the illustration, I have your notes saved. :)
>>61466700Seems like a stretch.
>>61466700Eh not really. There are plenty of M60s around in museums and at Army bases as decorations. They're also still in active service with third worlders. If they were rare guns, sure. But tanks do take up a lot of space compared to other items.
>>61470073>Don't hear about the mall that often even though they did see their fair share of combat rightThe biggest two performances of the M60 were the 1973 Arab-Israeli war and the Iran-Iraq war. They were both evenly matched for the most part, but the M60's marksmanship had a small edge at distances beyond 2000 meters, this was probably ideal in Israel but it wasn't applicable to the envisioned environment for the M60 in Europe, where the expected average distance for tank combat was between 800-1000 meters. FM71-2 regarded the T-62 as having between 5-10% an edge on the kill shot vs. the M60, the T-62 was also regarded as a foil to the M60 in TRADOC. The M60 itself was also viewed as something of an interim tank while the T95 prototype (later abandoned) progress was underway. In Iran things are a bit more murky, but there was one full fledged tank battle where an entire division of Iranian M60's and some Chieftains were practically eradicated by an entrenched Iraqi brigade with T-62's.
>>61473073things get more murky after the 1970sM60A1 eventually got a 2-plane stabilizer of its own, giving it parity at close range while retaining advantage at long rangethey also got nightvision that was superior to the T-62sthe ballistic computer on the M60A1 was also capable of pre-sighting the gun while in turret down, so it could enter hull down on briefly to fire before retreating back, the T-62 would need to begin laying the gun while hull down
Question for the thread, when the M60 was introduced it came into service with the 105mm gun, completely replacing the 90mm gun the M48 had in use. Later the M1 Abrams was introduced with the a slightly upgraded but ultimately the same 105mm gun, despite said gun being seen as obsolete by the time of the M1s development. Why then was there no 90mm M60 interim tank? What was the logic in not immediately introducing the Abrams with a 120mm gun from the beginning?
>>61474288The 120mm was introduced in 1985 on the M1A1 iirc, while the M68 was introduced shortly before/during inital M60 production
>>61459959the real question you should ask is why is the T55 so smalland the answer to that is that the soviet union was compensating their shitty metal working capabilities and inferior materials by giving the tank a smaller profile, so it would be harder to hit.the interiors of the T55 are really small and extremely uncomfortable.
>>61474288>when the M60 was introduced it came into service with the 105mm gun, completely replacing the 90mm gun the M48 had in usenot immediatelythe M48 saw service in vietnam because the M60 was desperately needed in europe in case the soviets attacked>What was the logic in not immediately introducing the Abrams with a 120mm gun from the beginning?inertia, mostly, they still had a lot of 105mm guns in service and they were the nearest thing they had always planned for the 120mm gun to be the main armament, but the 105mm gun had its service life extended with the addition of monobloc penetrator rounds like M111 and M774 that could frontally defeat T-72Aswhereas the 90mm gun was seen as inadequate against the IS-series of tanks even with HEAT, so that was a priority to replace
>>61470260The M60 hull was just a few major cast pieces welded together. As long as the Turks have the machine tools I doubt it's hard to manufacture. They just through extra armor and new tech on top of it. The M60 had the toughest hull armor of all the western mid Cold War tanks until they upgraded the Chieftain into what became the Challenger. Here's the newest Turk version undergoing trials without the extra armor panels added on yet. Taiwan is apparently considering the new Turk turret.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpIdR_Cs4Co
>>61473061This. The US reefed about 1000 M60s and sold off about 5,000 to thirdies but there are still a bunch sitting in yards rotting away and thousands in service with foreign countries. There are like 8,000 of the 15,000 built still hanging around. Turkey can also still technically make a new M60 from scratch if they wanted to because they can build the hull. They'd just have to mate a new turret to it.
>>61473500these are all minor differences, the close range advantage is probably more to due with accuracy and armor pen (115mm apfsds had damn near vertical velocity, gunlaying for a target is near identical between sub-500 meters all the way to 1.8km away from the tank). The ballistic computer in the M60A1 doesn't have the capability you said, you're mistaking it with the coincidence rangefinder and its positioning on the M60's massive and tall turret. The computer, if I recall well, only adjusts the elevation of the main gun, and the TC also has control on the turret, but his cupola is not stabilized. These features are great for hull-down based warfare, which is what the M60 is built for (it has really shitty armor compared to the T-62), but in giving an edge in tank fighting, in practice, is mostly placebo when accounting for the velocity of 115mm APFSDS sabots, its biggest boon is making the gunner less likely to miss since it is easier to fire too short and too far with the velocities of most munitions fired by the 105mm M68. The night vision in the T-62 was also not too far behind the M60, what was really terrible was the IR spotlight which was pretty weak.
>>61474651> the close range advantage is probably more to due with accuracy and armor pen T-62 had a slight edge in close range accuracy due to higher velocity and stabilizer allowing for better snapshotsbut once the M60A1 got its own stabilizer, it equaled performance at that range by also allowing it to make quick snap shots >it has really shitty armor compared to the T-62hull armor is fairly closebut the turret armor on the needlenose turret is much stronger than the T-62s>The computer, if I recall well, only adjusts the elevation of the main gunonce you have range sighted, the gun is automatically laid in at the correct angleit was 100% possible to range in on a target while hidden and then only expose the tank while firing
>>61473073You could have the best tanks in the world, but if you bumbled your way into the wrong end of a double envelopment it's not going to save you.
>>61474316Another limiting factor was engine technology. The T-54's engine was only slightly more powerful than the T-34's despite it weighing 22,000lbs more. If they had made the tank any bigger, the power-to-weight ratio would have started to be a significant problem.
Opinion: The DoD should've gone all-in with the Starship. All Pattons should've been converted to the Starship variant. The US military should've reformed its tank doctrine around the 152mm gun-launcher.
Still better optics than what Russia has.
>>61475188No
https://litter.catbox.moe/ha7jkp.pdfPatton enjoyers, grab it while it's hot.
>>61475218Yes.
>>61475257No.
>>61459959>M60 thread
I disagree, the warrior doesn’t seem to be very good. For instance, the vehicle can’t fire its main gun accurately while on the move because it lacks gun stabilization. This problem has only been highlighted as of late because of the videos coming out of Ukraine. The successes of the Bradley in Ukraine are widely known and its ability to accurately engage targets while moving is featured in the majority of Bradley videos to come out of Ukraine. Another distinct problem is the low ROF the vehicle suffers due to being fed by a 3 round clip with just 6 rounds ready at the gun before the gunner has to manually reload.
>>61461542>>61461553A bunch are also decorations at various public buildings and monuments or veterans associations. I live in bumfuck rural Kentucky and I know of 4 M60s near me and 2 M48s. Back in my home town there was an M113 and M60 parked as monuments outside the policy academy (which also had a National Guard recruiting area too).
>>61459959The M60 is lighter and more usable than the M240. What the actual fuck are you talking about.
>>61475188>reform your tank doctrine around a weapon that doesn't work properly, and would be at a disadvantage against a normal gun firing APFSDS even if it did
>>61474288>What was the logic in not immediately introducing the Abrams with a 120mm gun from the beginning?The M1 came out of the XM803 project by way of the MBT-70 project , which ran into cost over-runs and complexity. So with the XM1 they were ordered to make it cheap(er) and with less development risk, but it was left open for further upgrades such as the 120mm etc
>>61474288>The 110mm gun was not considered sufficiently superior to the 105mm gun M68 and the 120mm smooth bore was not expected to be available in time to meet the proposed production schedule.
>>61474651>the TC also has control on the turret, but his cupola is not stabilizedActually it is, in fact, stabilized. That was one of like 2 good things about it.
>>61475229Would be cool if that link worked at all
>>61475953>grab it while it's hot.You waited until it was cold. Amateur.
>>61475953>>61475963https://litter.catbox.moe/arvt3q.pdfForgot to change expiration date. I don't like uploading shit forever.
>>61473073>>61474651Why isn't there any mention of the T-62's horrible rate of fire and its fatal flaw - the need to elevate the gun upwards after every shot to reload? That's the two worst things about the T-62 which make the otherwise a mediocre and expensive upgrade to the T-55 a woefully bad tank.>it has really shitty armor compared to the T-62You should really lay off the vatnik cool aid, anon.>The night vision in the T-62 was also not too far behind the M60, what was really terrible was the IR spotlight which was pretty weak.The M60's IR spotlight was actually quite advanced, allowing different modes of operation, adjusting brightness and other cool shit. The night vision itself was indeed subpar gen 0 stuff until the Passive upgrade that upgraded it to gen 2.
>another M60 threadI swear, one of these gets made every week.
>>61476036Good.
>>61476036Are you angry dude?
>Ctrl + F M60>2 results>yay!>Oh, it's the damn tank again...
>>61476057Nope. Are you?
>>61476036Someone out there has a raging boner for the M60 and the time to make multiple threads about it.Or it's just really popular.I mean these two fellows jumped to its defense in minutes of your statement....>>61476045>>61476057
>>61466684In case someone hasn't figured it out, the hull was cast in one piece. I wonder if the V-shaped hull bottom did anything against mines like modern V-hull APCs do.
>>61461561T-62 doesn't have the cosmonaut launch system, lt explodes normally.
>>61475998Thanks man
>>61476022probably because I'm talking about the M60. >horrible rate of firethis is a hyperbole, taking averages shows that the fluctuation is, at absolute best, 1 second. The TRADOC video published in the US later isn't following a good loading procedure. All Soviet statistics and tests show the time needed to reload the gun averaged 8 seconds. Tests made by the Soviets on some M60's showed the main gun can be loaded while underway in around 7 seconds. Most of what's been laid down ITT has shown that comparing these tanks is basically splitting hairs. the differences are too granular for any tank to have tech superiority. It was all about the combat conditions and tactics.>autoloaderThis is an issue, but the T-62 had a stabilized gun. Even if the tank turns to a different direction or is underway, the gun will return to its original azimuth and elevation. This problem is also minimized by using battlesighting techniques (as mentioned previously 115mm APFSDS had near vertical velocity, rangefinding is needed only on a minimal scale at extreme ranges, where the M60 would have a theoretical edge).
>>61476192>but the T-62 had a stabilized gunSo it could fire on the move? Right?
>>61476192Wtf is this post. Your text was clearly talking to M60 in comparison to the T-62 while ignoring its most fatal flaws.>All Soviet statistics and tests showOh you're one of those subhuman niggers.>autoloaderAre you legitimately retarded or something?
>>61476222Yes.
>>61476224>Wtf is this post. Your text was clearly talking to M60 in comparison to the T-62 while ignoring its most fatal flawsMy post was talking about the M60.>Oh you're one of those subhuman niggers.'Anyone who disagrees with me is a ZIGGER!' - Pedro Hernandez, Amerimutt patriot.>Are you legitimately retarded or somethingNo, I'm just tired and made a simple mistake. I meant the case ejection system. Please go be a McDonalds devouring subhuman somewhere out of my sight if you're going to shit up this thread.
>>61476192Where do they still find you vatnigger retards to go into tank threads and spout retarded bullshit like this? You should've all killed yourselves long before now with how much you get proven wrong.
>>61476259>My post was talking about the M60.So you just lie about the T-62 and deflect to the M60, ok.>'Anyone who disagrees with me is a ZIGGER!' - Pedro Hernandez, Amerimutt patriot.No, but you clearly are. What kind of mutt are you, chink, russoid, arab or latam?>No, I'm just tired and made a simple mistake. Your entire life as a tankie shill is a simple mistake, you worthless piece of trash.
Don't shit up the thread, please.
>>61476192>All Soviet statistics and tests show the time needed to reload the gun averaged 8 seconds. Tests made by the Soviets on some M60's showed the main gun can be loaded while underway in around 7 seconds.This is hillarious. Meanwhile in reality T-62 can fire off 4, maybe 5 shots per minute on a lucky day.
>>61476231It wasnt good enough for shooting on the move, it mostly kept the gun sight on target while moving so you could fire on a short stopThe M60A1 did get a stabilizer that allowed for very limited shooting on the move, but only against stationary targets below 1kmIt wasnt until the later T-64s and M1 abrams that you got stabilisers capable of accurate fire while sprinting
>>61476492>It wasnt until the later T-64s and M1 abrams that you got stabilisers capable of accurate fire while sprintingI highly doubt the T-64 stabilizer was any better than the one on the M60A1.
>>61475188Okay but only if we can get MBT-70 with a conventional 105mm cannon
>>61476782The best I can offer.
>>61476818>1953Wild
>>61476818>unmanned turrets increase crew survivability >Thinly armored 3 ton bomb over their head
>>61477328
>>61466700Reefs are cool, especially when they're made of tanks.>t. diver
>>61477340So according to those two illustrations the ONLY thing that gets hit is the 3 tons of explosives protected by 100mm of the worse ballistic shape possible?
>>61477418It's a concept study from 1953. But that's the idea.But yeah, when ammo is hit, it's better when it's not located in the fighting compartment.Ironically it's not a 3 ton bomb, more like 3 ton of fuel canisters. Conflagration, with explosion directed in other directions.
>>61466826How does the replacement turret fit both a T-72 and an M-60? Do they really have exactly the same size turret ring?
>>61477586They use adapters, like this guy>>61475550
>>61462225>This was the fate of the bulk of the Sheridans.Figures, the only way to stop a sheridan from exploding and burning down to a puddle is to dump it in the ocean
>>61466700Are you fucking stupid? It's a great way to immortalize a machine, providing a point of interest for divers, and base for marine life.
>>61462381I recently read a comment from a tanker that drove these and m60she said the m48 felt like a sportscar compared to the m60
>>61474651>"Screw this, I'm out of here"
>>61466541Agreed hell lets get them out of the ocean floor and fix them and send them over as well.
>>61462381>prefers mogas in his tank v diesel>90mmidk predicted lifespan was not good on the 60.I guess the fuel made no difference when the cherry juice was in there with you.60s were cool.Sheridans were real cool, much faster. Guided missile on a tank. Fire and forget? Unknown technology.
>>61466541Given Ukes didn't buy the Spanish m60's, we presume they are not interested
>>61476492>>61476534I was on a1s, was not aware of gun tube stabilization. Drove and shot them.If it was mentioned at AIT I dont recall.What was emphasized was the driver making smooth but short stops. Gunners appreciated not having the scope in their eye. We were told that russian tank crews were chosen for short height. I'm 6'1 and fit in comfortably. Later years got to play around in the 11th Cav's museum at ft Irwin, the russian tanks were quite cramped. Jews joked after the 73 (?) war, whats the difference between a zippo lighter and an M60? M60 lights first strike everytime. The hydraulic fluid supposedly got changed from cherry to lemon sometime after that.Not an expert, just a grunt.
>>61481223>I was on a1s, was not aware of gun tube stabilizationit was added on after the 70s, a 2-plane stabilizer the original M60A1 didnt have a stabilizer at first, since the army didnt think that adding a crappy stabilizer for a marginal bonus on shortstops was worth the cost of replacing every single one of them later on with the real stabilizer even the add-on stabilizer wasnt perfect at firing on the move, it was supposedly only rated to do so at short range as mentioned, it was mostly for keeping the gun on target so you can fire immediately after stopping the A3 with digital ballistic computer was absolutely capable of firing on the move though, since it took relative motion into account
>>61475188The turret design is a good idea, but the gun is pretty shitty.Starship with a 105 or 120 would be badass though.
>>61475665Underrated post
>>61459959This and the M48 are literally some of the most soulful kino tanks that have ever walked this Earth
>>61475998>21 hours ago>already deadbastard, at least put it on a day or 3 days
>>61482890I swear I did. Well, I have good news for you. You get some extra.https://litter.catbox.moe/gdi4au.pdfhttps://litter.catbox.moe/rs6sp0.pdfhttps://litter.catbox.moe/6f0611.pdf
I love the fact their solution to the M60 being taller then a house was to just shave off the turret's sides making it thinner and much more uncomfortable for the turret crew. Somebody must've mixed up the X and Y axis at work that day
>>61466700Lol retard
>>61474316>the real question you should ask is why is the T55 so smalla smaller vehicle has less surface area to armor and less surface area to present a hitsquare cube law also works in their favor, even small reductions in vehicle dimensions translated to large savings in weight, at the cost of large reductions in volumeso the smallest possible tank would be harder to hit, easier to armor, be easier to transport, and be easier to recoverthe cramped conditions could be alleviated by simply replacing an exhausted unit with a fresh one to maintain tempo, which was possible because of the sheer number of them made
>>61482941I don't agree with your idea of not uploading stuff forever (the more places something is shared, the more it can be found in the future, especially for neat scans like these), but thanks for the extras too.
>>61461542They basically got thrown away so the MIC could profit endlessly. They are going to regret getting rid of so much of their old equipment when WW3 happens.
>>61488177>They basically got thrown away so the MIC could profit endlessly.they were sold off to allies who still used themits because it costs money to keep them in running condition, and every year it costs more money to upgrade them to relevancyat a certain point, the cost of upgrading them to the modern standard simply outweights the cost of just buying an M1 abrams>They are going to regret getting rid of so much of their old equipment when WW3 happens.when WW3 happens, they would rather have a uniform fleet of M1s rather than a hodge podge of M1s and M60sthe only reason that M60s were still retained in the 80s was because the enemy still mostly had T-62s and T-72As with no thermals, so the M60 was still somewhat relevant and they still hadnt fully transitioned to M1sbut today, there are more than enough M1s to meet demand, at least 2000 M1A1s in storage waiting to be upgraded to M1A2 standardso maintaining the M60s just to pad out overall number seems like a pointless expense that could be better spent going through the backlog of old M1s
>>61488177They got thrown away because it's hard to scrap a vehicle made to withstand shit far nastier than a welding torch. The Russians said they scrapped the bulk of their T-55s only for the scrappers to give up after a dozen vehicles.
>>61488279Wrecking yards had a hard time destroying old Mercedes during the cash for clunkers program so a lot of them just sold off the parts under the table.
>>61488261How naive lmao>>61488279Yeah I'm sure it would have been so horrible to have those tanks sit out in the desert sealed up the same way they seal up old aircraft for future use instead of just throwing them into the fucking ocean. Give your head a shake
>>61488497>How naive lmaothe amount of time and effort to upgrade an M60 with composite armor, a new engine, totally new electronics, and just replacing all the decades old parts would be close to just buying an M1and it would still be worse than an M1 the effort is simply better spent on upgrading M1s to modern standardespecially when theres still a backlog of thousands of M1s they have to go through that would be a higher priority than the M60s
>>61481196Ukraine has been getting a small but steady supply of more modern western arms. If shit truly hit the fan and headway was made by the vatniks in western Ukraine we'd probably see the M60 and Leopard 1 starting to head to Ukraine, though it seems unlikely it will come to that.
>>614751885he gang
>>61489850They already got modernized Leopard 1s. There's no point in America inventing "M60 obr. 2025", the Turks do that instead.
>>61490538America did build a modernized Leopard 1 thoughbeitIt's called the M10 Booker
>>61466558None; they used infantry.
>>61459959>>61460048The commander cupola has been reinvindicated due to drones.
>>61492313M10 is more like a modern take on the M8 scott>>61495705cupola is dead and buried thanks to RWS
>>61495712Yeah but a modern cuppula is extra armor on top hence it being reinvidicated due to drones
>>61495728the cupola isnt any stronger than the roof its replacing, and it interferes with the slewing of the MGRWS has all the upsides of situational awareness without the drawback of having to fit both the commander and the machine gun in a tiny space
