M60 | How good was the US MBT
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 сер 2022
- The M60 was designed back in 1957 and came into service in 1959 and it remains in service until this day, in total this vehicle has been produced 15.000 times, which for a tank is massive, to put this into perspective, this is more then the German Panther, British Centurion and British Cromwell have been produced which combined would sit in the 14.000’s
The M60 ofcourse had several different versions of it available. These versions were the M60, M60A1, M60A2 and M60A3, you also had several foreign upgraded M60’s these were mainly done on the M60A3, The M60 had seen a lot of action in its life span but we will talk about this later into the video.
The M60 weighed in at about 46 Tonnes which is comparable to the weight of the M26 Pershing which also weighs about 46 tonnes. It was actually a bigger tank then you might imagine, the M60 hull was 6.9 Meters long, it’s width was 3.6 meters wide and it was 3.2 meters tall. This allowed the m60 to fit 4 crew members in the tank, the crew consisted of a Driver, Gunner Loader and Commander
This time I did do manage to find a picture with the armour values of the tank, if you would like to have a longer look at the armour values feel free to pause the video, it seems like these are the armour values of the normal M60, you can see this because the upper glasis was 98mm
The M60 was outfitted with a 105mm main armament, this armament was also used on the M60A1, the M60A2 however used a 152mm
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @learninghistorytogether
The M60A1 weights closer to 53 tons . It's height did give it an advantage in hull down positions and it gave the gun more depression. It's roominess also.reduced crew fatigue. The road range was over 300 miles on 350 gallons of fuel. I was a US Army M60 crewman and we never called it a Patton.
I was very skeptical about the 300 miles(500 kilometers) because it seemed so extremely much especially when generally the tanks i've talked about were between the 100-200 kilometer mark but thanks for confirming
And it is listed everywhere as a Patton so i decided to go with it 😅 however i rectified this changed title and thumbnail
The m60a1 is 52.6 Short tons i think you mean that?
It has a huge fuel capacity - nearly 1500 litres from memory.
@@markstuk slightly over 350 gallons, and roughly a mile to the gallon. It took a while to fuel.
I trained on the M60A3, but when I got to my unit, all they had were A1s. Bummer. My brother crewed the M1A1. The '60 was a lot more fuel efficient than the Abrams, but that makes sense given that it had only half the horsepower of the M1. Road marches were long, slow slogs in the M60. When you came to an incline, you were tempted to get out and push.
@@LearningHistoryTogether I was a gunner on the M60A1 in 1986. Yes, over 300 miles. On the road. Huge fuel tanks. About 320 gallons if not mistaken.
When I drove it, mostly in training, I got it up to about 45mph on hard pack. My TC was yelling at me the entire time, but I NEEDED to know how fast it could go. It could go faster too.
Also...we would park on top of a hill , in a low spot and I'd track cars going down the freeway for impromtu practice. No rounds of course.
I tell you what. I didn't shoot a rifle for 3 years after I got out. After shooting a tank....a rifle is like meh.....
I served on the M60A3 as a driver, gunner and tank commander. I was surprised when I crossed over to the Abrams that the TTS (M60A3 thermal sight) was better than the Abrams at the time. The M60s were solid tanks that did everything pretty darn good. It will still do the job with the right upgrades today.
I was a tank crewman and a tank commander on the M60A1 while with C Company 1st Battalion, 35th Armor, Erlangen, 1st Armored Division Germany.
By the standards in tank design in the 1960s and 1970s, this tank would rate as one of the best.
Its fire control system with its range finder and ballistic computer could accurately pump out 3 to 4 main gun rounds a minute, with a first round hit a majority of the time.
This was a major advantage over soviet tank design.
Soviet tank design during this time relied on BOT (Burst On Target). This would require the gunner to adjust his scope radical on his gun sight to where the first round hit.
Other advantages with the M60 variants are the infrared night vision capabilities for the commander, gunner, and driver. Gun stabilization was also a feature that would permit the tank to fire accurately on the move.
The M85 50 caliber machine gun was excellent, I never had a jam, and it did not require head space and timing like the infantry version did.
I do agree with the issue of the flammable hydraulic fluid that was called OHT. That was a problem.
Maintenance on the tank was well thought out. We could take the engine out in 30 minutes to 1 hour when we performed Q Service twice a year.
The weight of the tank when combat loaded was actually 63 tons.
I was in Erlangen '78-'79 in 2/81st. Biggest improvement when I was there was the coax upgrade when they ditched that shitbox 219 for the FN. The M60 was a pretty good tank but I would have traded it for a Leopard.
I was in Erlangen from November 1975 to November 1978. C 1/35 Armor.
We also had a coax upgrade when we replaced the M73 coax machine gun for a Belgium made version (I don't remember the name). The new Belgium coax machine gun was a dream. It never jammed while spitting out rounds like a well-oiled, perfectly tuned machine.
I'd probably agree that the German Leppard tank and the British Chieftain were probably better tanks. But, the US closed the gap significantly with the introduction of the M1 Abrams in 1980.
If you had to rank the top 5 tanks in service during the Cold War of the 1970s, one of the M60, M60A1, M60A2, and M60A3 would make the top 5. None of the best Soviet tanks in the 1970s would make the list.
That's my opinion as a tank crewman and tank commander with the 1st Armored Division Erlangen and the 1st Infantry Division "The Big Red One." 1975 to 1979.
@@wawaweweb1811 The FN 219 Coax was indeed a POS, it spent more time jamming than firing.
Loved my 85.
@@michaelcurl9817 I was in CCO 1/35 from Dec 74 to Sept 76. Last tank I drove was C22 with Sgt Minny.
M60A3 was my tank; I was a platoon leader and XO at Armor Company, Fort Hunter Liggett, CA, from 1986 to 1989. The M60A3 was therefore the best tank ever made. In the field a lot, but home almost every night since we were an experimentation unit and we were dependent on civilian techs who monitored our tanks during experiments. We simulated a Soviet Motorized Rifle Company, and our experiments showed the Army that the SGT York Air Defense Gun was crap, and the Marines that the LAV-25 was pretty good. British troops joined us once for an experiment and were complementary of the M60A3 because it was pretty reliable.
I'm very accustomed to this tank. I was a member of the 2/68th Armor....my tank was an M60A1. Loved it
WHY dont they send these to Ukraine,they have a convensional diesel motor,theres lots of em cause some asshole took them away from the Marine Corps and unless im wrong they have the same main gun now as the Abrams....and how about the M-551 light tank?The Airborn isnt useing them any more,that 152mm gun/missile launcher would be a terror on those old soviet cans!
@Glenn Lee You are correct. They have the same 120mm cannon now as well as better gun stabilizers. Judging from the way the old soviet cans have performed so far, I'd say an M60 outfitted with latest tech and armor would be more than a match for any T-series they throw at it.
@@glennlee6274 one on display in Gadsden Alabama, a hatch is open and about a foot of rain water is inside 😢 blows my mind how the military just gets rid of and wastes so many of these awesome machines
@@glennlee6274 early version (M-1) had the same 105 (I believe M68) The M1-A1 went to the M256 (120mm) smoothbore
"Scouts Out" Done my time in front of Lady Lionheart.
I was a platoon leader in 1977-1978 with 3/32 Armor in Friedberg, FRG. We felt great about our M60A1's and later, our A3's. We felt that we could defeat our enemies at that time. Unfortunately, our battle plans were sold to the Soviets by a traitor, so they would have known where to concentrate artillery and Hind helicopters, which would have been difficult, but maybe not impossible. I'm glad we didn't have to find out in any case.
Not to mention by the time we combat loaded ammo in our Tanks we would probably be overrun! 8th ID Mainz....1974
Sister, unit station at the rock delta company, 2/32 AR
The strength of the A3 was its excellent fire control system and night vision capabilities which gave it significant advantages over soviet systems. You did not give this crucial aspect of tank design proper attention.
I was in the recon platoon of an armored battalion in the seventies, went a few months loaned out to the POL section. From what I remember the M60 used 3 gallons a mile and had about a 100 mile range. Our M114s got about 3 miles to a gallon with about the same range, that poor Chevy 283 worked it`s heart out pushing around a 7 ton tracked vehicle.
I do remember that when a M88 sideswipes a M60 on a Graf tank trail during a night movement the M60 will lose quite a few of it`s roadwheels. Someone spent a chunk of time in the motorpool running the odometer up with a drill to get enough mileage on it to get it replaced.
The Sherman tank of its time. Not the best, but reliable, and cheap to make or upgrade, lots of spare parts, but still able to “getr done”
M60A1 Tank was great in its time. Former Driver/Gunner. 8th ID 1974
The M60 was cheap and reliable and easy to upgrade.
The upgrade packages available for the M60 are many at the moment as are the amount of tanks still in service worldwide.
😎
Longevity is always a important factor to consider to be fair.
I recognize the photo from 1:13 ! I was the person who took that photo, with my wife standing in front of the M60 there. This example is located in south central Kentucky, in the US. It's situated at a Veteran's hall.
Super cool what a coincidence, i saw this picture and decided to use it because it showed how extremely massive this tank actually was :)
@@LearningHistoryTogether They are truly massive, only looking smaller in person to the M103 I got to get on this past spring. My wife and I play World of Tanks and are armored vehicle fans, so we've checked out a bunch. Even American light tanks are big, with the M41 Bulldog I was at recently being quite large.
@@MongooseJakeNerf ahh nice dude, sadly in europe there aren't a lot of American Tanks, i've only seen a Sexton (not really a tank) M8A1, M4 Sherman and Chaffee i think.
I live near an m60a3, my favorite tank, and man is it massive
I crewed the M60A1 while in West Germany with 5/68 in the late 70's. Was also in the A3's. I miss the old girl.
From an Infantry pov, I loved it. Roomy turret(I know, makes the hull big) but hey, 'Murica'. Not a bad ride outside for Leg soldiers. Way better than M48 or T55. 1/9 INF, Korean DMZ, 1984-85.
During Reforger exercises in Germany in the freezing cold winter, I invited three Infantry guys into my M60A1 tank turret to warm up.
When the heater worked in the tank, we could get it real toasty inside.
Those infantrymen really appreciated the relief from the bitter cold.
"Mediocre" is a bit unfair. It was a good tank with being great, and certainly equal to anything from the Soviet Union at the time i.e T54/55 and T-2, and when fitted with ERA, the T-64 and T-72. It's 105mm gun, based on the superb British L7, was superior to the 125mm smoothbore of the T-64 onwards; although a smaller calibre, it was far more accurate and had a better fire control system, and in the hands of a well-trained crew was quite an efffctve tank. But from that era, give me a Centurion any day.
I'd have to agree with that. I think that M60 is an example of paper statistics not telling the full story. While it's turret armor wasn't especially thick, sloping added to the effective thickness. Also, the fire control system is immensely important to the effectiveness and lethality of a tank. And for it's time the M60s FCS was much more advanced than the most numerous Soviet adversaries. I was a Marine tanker and looked into the turrets of old M60s on display, turret was like a dance hall! Much roomier than my M1A1. I was still glad to be in the Abrams though!
I served on M60A1’s and M60A3’s. The hydraulic issue was fixed with a change in hydraulic fluid based on those lessons from the ‘73 war. I have to disagree, the M60 was not mediocre.
Really you have to judge it based on its contemporaries like T54 T62 in that case in my view it's a great tank.
The M60A3 is aesthetically my favorite tank.
with or without era?
@@cloaker2829 It looks great both with and without.
@@00tree correct answer
Yes. Something about it I just don't know!
@@cloaker2829 I like the looks of it without the ERA , went to a park once in a place called Desoto in Arkansas and they had a M60 just sitting there for some reason.
The M60 was to American army what the Leo1 was to European armed forces. Limited armour and (relatively) high mobility, coupled to excellent firepower. That said and the armament being essentially identical, the (1976) Leo1 that I had my training on, had far better target acquisition and 1st shot capability with vastly superior Time-on-Target, as well as a distinctly lower physical profile and far less hydraulics vulnerabilities. I am glad that I was relegated to the (by then aging) Centurion MK5/2, since I didn't jive too well with the diesel-rumble of the Leo1 (it gave me excruciating head-aches).
LOVED LEO1 but its armor was minimal until the steel rubber armor with perforated plates was added in 1980 Both tanks had excellent FCS allowing firing 3 rounds in 10-15 seconds ....critical in firefight.....oh yes forgot Thermal imager always critical.
I was stationed in Germany with the 6/14th F A , 1st Armored Division. We were scheduled to receive our new M-109A1's to replace our short tube M-109's. Our new M-109A1's were pulled and sent to Israel to up grade there equipment, we got our's a year later. clp
My pop was an Army Colonel stationed at Fort Sill in the 1970s and where we lived in the officer’s housing was just a few hundred yards from a depot where the Army had a number of M60s. I would ride my spider-bike to that depot all the time just to watch the crews prep their tanks. It was awesome!
I served on the M60A1 in the mid-70s, it got 1mpg onroad and about 3gal per mile in the German mud. Weak spots were the design of the turret ring which later had an overlapping armor design, ammunition in the left rear of the turret along with the location of the Hydraulic system.
Israel later removed the turret ammunition, and the TC cupola and repositioned the hydraulic system along with the chin armor addition to the turret ring. front slope LOS was 250mm.
Even in 1975 we were at a point where RHA was becoming obsolete with the available ammunition, simply put, you couldn't carry enough armor to stop ATGMs and HEAT rounds along with the later sabot rounds.
I was a gunner than tank commander of an m 60 in the 3/3/ 32 armor in frg in 1971 to1974. The m60 was a workhorse and solid preformer, it wasnt a perfect ,but than neither is any thing else
The M-60 and it's variants, we're damned good equipment at the time with upgrades and improvements it remained highly effective and remain viable to this day. But the main factor was the crews meaning them. Excellent soldiers.
I SERVED ON THE M-60 TANK, IT WAS VERY GOOD TANK, FAST DEPEDABLE, AND COULD KILL ANY TANK AT YHAT TIME, I WAS THE DRIVER, OF COURSE ALL CREWMAN KNEW EVERYBODYS JOB HAVE A NICE TREADHEADS
Yeah and you are free to disagree with me, that is what the 'my opinion' part is about, to discuss our opinions about the tank :)
I just looked at the Data, and since i recently have done the Centurion video it seemed to be worse so i concluded for it to be a mediore tank. I didn't say it was 'bad'
@@LearningHistoryTogether What I read/heard was that while the tank was not all that fast top speed it was very quick on the acceleration. The idea was that it was designed to "shoot and scoot". Find a good position fire several shots and then change positions quickly hence good acceleration with mediocre top speed. Buddy was a loader on one he said they could get off 18 rounds in the first minute but then ROF slowed down quite a bit. The 18 was possible 15 in the ready rack and 18 from the hull. Once the ready rack was empty rounds had to be pulled from the hull stowage and that slowed things down quite a bit. The 18 rpm was just firing as fast as possible .
@@LearningHistoryTogether Did you serve in the tank Mr. Pin Head.....?????
I SEE YOU STILL MANAGE TO SHOUT OVER THE NOISE AND RUMBLE OF THE ENGINE! (Thank you for your service, hope the M60 kept you and your mates well.)
I would rather be in a M60 tank or a Centurion tank then any Russian tank....
Think right now anyone with a Russian Tank that hasn't been modified or heavily retro-fitted or upgraded likely will run to a Centurion or M60 which actually is designed for crew survivability.
Amen to that.
If you enjoyed the video, please make sure to like, subscribe, and leave a comment. i missed anything, feel free to say that as well.
We are aiming for 3.000 subscribers at the end of tbe year, so every sub is more than welcome!
If you are interested in my discord server here you can get a link to that: discord.gg/tZYjzMkdAX
I saw an M60 at a museum. I noticed that it was big. It is much bigger than a T-72 , which the museum also had. I also noticed that the lower hull is angled inward. I thought it was boat-like if you could imagine it without the tracks and road wheels. etc.
Small rectifications:
0:38 more*
4:27 6 and 7 (not 7/7)
Apparently the M60 isn't a Officially Named a 'Patton' However it is considerd a Improvement on the Patton which you can see when you compair the M48A2 and the First M60 :)
Hm, If given the choice between an M60 and a Leo1, I'd choose the Centurion any day.
I'd say your pronunciations fall within accent variations. As I say the holiday it is Yom (rhymes with home) Key-Pour. The upgraded tanks from Israel are Ma-Gah-CH.
US tanks have generally been measured in imperial short tons - 2000 pounds, and an approximate conversion of 2.2 pounds to the kilogram. So I think you confused the measurements at about a 1:12. The M26 is 46 tons, and the M60 50-54 tons depending on the model. A rough metric estimate is 41 tonne vs 49 tonne in for the two respectively.
Probably worth noting that the M60A2 was an attempt to turn a 1950s design into a super advanced vehicle with a gun-missile system and other new things for the time, which didn't pan out all that well. So the A3 model returned to the same 105mm gun as before, but received more modest upgrades to fire control as time went on.
The one USMC tank that was lost was due to striking an anti-tank mine, not from being taken out by an Iraqi tank. Interestingly enough, the M60 had been fitted with anti-tank mine rollers supplied by the US Army.
My favorite tank.
surely the title should read ''How good IS the US MBT'' ?
Easy to work on, I was a mechanic
love the wedge turret
M60a2 is the STARSHIP, but the a3 is the Desert Stormer along with the M1a1 Abrams.
So technically, A3 is the digital tech that became iconic for a last Medium Tank.
The M60 was a good tank, reliable armed with a good gun but it did had some drawbacks as the engine was never seriously upgraded into a more powerful engine, apparently because it had to be modified the engine bay, but it was slow especially doing off road. The other was the serious flaw was discovered during Yom Kippur war as many M60 turret's hydraulic fluid was replaced with a non-flammable one and a thicker armour under the mantlet. Many countries supplied with the M60, especially with the IDF forces got rid of the cupola as soon as possible as they were not satisfied with it and lowering a bit the height. But the M60 did a good service also because of the constant upgrading! Good job 👍 👍👍
The problem with the hydraulic fluid was the low ignition point. Once the US became aware of the issue, they switched to one with a much higher ignition point.
@@brucenorman8904 yes, I understood that and I think that they have repositioned the hydraulic system to a less vulnerable position but I might say nonsense...
I would really have liked a better gun stabilization system. The A1s I crewed were bad enough that we almost always stopped to shoot, unlike the M1 which doesn't care how fast it's going.
Turkish army liked the cupola as fighting terrorist in southeast Turkish border. The cupola covered the commander from sniper fire. Later all pintle mount 50 cal on M48 were also fixed to fire from inside. Today Most M48's phased out of service and M60A1's got modernized by Israeli IMI, the other A3's will be upgraded with a new turret build by Roketsan retaining the 105mm M68 tank gun with unmanned machine gun on the roof. I'm curious what will come later for the M60's in Turkey: Scrapyard or another upgrade.
@sonergulal2005 thanks for the info as I didn't know that the Turkish commanders liked the cupola to protect them from the snipers! 👍👍
Best looking tank.
The M-60A1 weighed about 53-54 tons .
As WE tanks called cherry juice . But it was replaced with a non flammable Green oil in the 80's
I have served on the M60A3 it was 54 tons it also had upgraded engine bringing the horsepower up to around a thousand
Oh very cool, thank you for your service!
M60 is cute looking machine
CUTE?!?!? Did you say CUTE??? What are you -- Air Force or something?? 🤣 I prefer "iconic" to "cute".
@@evanwindom3265 its very round and pretty
You could pet it
@@petrsukenik9266 😆
The M60 is NOT a Patton!!! I served on a M60A1 as driver and gunner
I am sorry for this mistake, and thank yoj for your service!
3rd Armored Division in the 1970's was a good tank for what we had in those times. However todays tanks, will not compair to the tanks of 40 years from now. Only of its date in history at that time.
Ive heard m60 isnt a "Patton"
Well, there is a MachineGun which is called the M60, but as far as i am aware the tank is called the M60 Patton
After some digging it turns out you guys are right thanks for bringing it to my attention :)
@@LearningHistoryTogether and the M60 is my favorite LMG, especially the M60E6. Though the Vietnam version and even the M60E4 are pretty cool in thier own way. Denmark knows a good LMG when they see one =P
@@CMDRFandragon Was a 0331 machine gunner in the Marines .The M60 E3 was my girl and I’ve been out 32 years and to this day still miss my pig
Well, although it isn't technically a Patton it does have a lot of similarities so it's unofficially called the patton
Mos19E10 Armor center Fort Knox graduate !!!!!!
The best thing about it was it's British gun.
what are the angled lines in the armour sheet? does it mean anything?
Do you mean the armour or?
@@LearningHistoryTogether wait nevermind I have come to the conclusion that infact missed the fact that those indicate the armors angle on the vehicle. oops
No such thing as an M60 Patton. A tank named that does not exist.
Fairly mediocre tank? Compared to what? Think you have compare it to tanks when it came out in 1957, to be fair.
Compaired to the Centurion in my opinion it was, However Fairly Mediocre doesn't mean it is bad, i just dont find anything about it outstanding appart from its operational range.
And it is just a opinion, feel free to disagree :)
Makes sense, you should have mentioned that, especially considering they were both massively exported and used by different countries for years. Guess the Centurion is better because you could make tea in it with the engine off!
I should add that I love your work, keep at it!
@@LearningHistoryTogether I think you're doing a great job - mediocre or awesome I like that you're opening up a forum for discussion. I also like that a lot of former crewman are contributing and commenting. I served with a bunch of former M60 crewman as the M1A1 was introduced into the Marines. They all fought in it in the first Gulf war. I never heard any of them say they wished they were still in the 60, but they never really complained about it either. Take that for what it's worth. Really enjoying your content. Thanks so much.
@LearningHistoryTogether im sorry the centurion armor is way less then the m60, it fire control system is less capable, theres a reason why isrealies preferred over the centurion
Mediocre?? Too tall? Let me tell you bub, you used her height to your advantage, you stayed hull down and then picked your target. I drove this beast and she weighed 54 tons unloaded, 56 tons combat loaded thank you very much. Get your bloody facts straight next time. If memory serves she took 385 gallons and our mileage was roughly 3 gallons to the mile. I believe. She was not a fast girl either. Thirty five MPH downhill with the wind behind you! LOL She may not have been as sexy as the Mi, but she would sure turn some heads. She was reliable, and with the new gunnery system in the A3 version, she was deadly accurate. her biggest downfall in my opinion was her turret stabilization system. When it was on it would keep the gun in the general vicinity and the gunner had to make the final lay onto target., unlike the M1's stab system that could keep the gun on the target. You also needed good team work between driver and gunner because at certain speeds the gunsight would be jumpy according to my gunner, it usually smoothed out around 5-6 mph according to my gunner when I drove the beast back in the 80's. The M-85 in the TC's cupola was crap also. There was actually a place on the turret that could be penetrated by small arms fire, these were on the bottom of the gun mantlet to the right and left side of the cheek of the turret. My Platoon sgt showed it to me. Hard to believe I know.
We had a small round penatration on the turret also when I was in Germany 1/35 Armor Erlangen. An infantry guy fired his practice anti tank round from a tube launcher that hit this particular spot during Reforger exercises. This weak spot is near the coax machine-gun barrel, which is really an illusion. The metal in this small area is thin aluminum that's backed up by steel armor. The hollow space between the aluminum and the steel gives it an illusion of a penatration. It looks bad but isn't really a problem.
sadly the Americans offered 600 to Canada and Canada turned them down
It was a piece of junk.
I am such a Tank Commander.
Happy YOU still live.
I love Israel Patton are good
TUNISIA USE IT TOO
The Sabra projects with Turkey show the M60 to be a reliable, capable, upgraded MBT, when a modern gun, modern fire control and electronics are introduced, modern ERA is installed, with capable air and ground support. The most advanced tank without air/sat/ground support is drone bait. Consider that - A $300 drone can take out a $20M tank. But even an upgraded M48 with support is combat capable in the right situation. And what's the point? "Modern" tanks like Abrams, Challenger II, LeClerc tend to be high maintenance, use inordinate amounts of fuel, less than reliable and expensive - for 1/2 - 3/4 of the cost by upgrading "older" more reliable, more efficient, less maintenance intensive designs an army can be just as, if not more, combat effective, provided ground/air/sat support is near peer or peer, tanks are fully upgraded with capable crews. The NATO method of using armor is inferior, being more expensive, more resource intensive and more prone to failure to the Israeli/Russian/Chinese method.
I was in the first 63rd armored in the seventies at Fort Riley
1982 cluster hill
I was in 2/63 then they changed it to 3/37
Good enough that every single one of them should be sent to Ukraine!
unsure how many of them are left but it is better than letting them rot away in the Storage
This summary sounds more like the same sort of summary the awful Sherman receives, "but it was numerically superior". LOL! The 105MM on the M60 outranged the Russian tanks used until the 125MM autoloader became de jour in almost every case. The ammo was far superior as well.
The M60 wasn't a "good" tank really, it was a typically US design left over from WW2 - the antithesis of the Centurion which was a very futuristic design from WW2. There were so many things, the Cent was that the M60 wasn't that it's no wonder the M1 has not one item of M60 influence in its design and plenty from the Cent and the chieftain. I served in M41s and thta was bad enough the M60 could have been a nightmare in combat against well trained and equipped troops. Glad I didn't have to do it.
And for the noddies, "speed" and "speed across country" are two different things and very few tanks could keep up with eh cent, the chieftain or the C1/2 across country. For example, the M41 was lighter and faster on the road than the cent but across country, the cent would marrmalise the M41 because torsion bar suspension just isn't as good as Horstmann.....
During WW2, the British had the Cromwell, Churchill, Crusader, Matilda, and Valentine tanks.
All of these tanks were not as good as the Sherman as they all had smaller main guns.
Most of the tank crews in the British Army would prefer the Sherman over these other allied tanks.
The M41 was classified as a light reconnaissance tank.
Its disign was from the late 1940s and its mission was to hit and run and not to go toe to toe with other MBTs.
The Centurion comparison is a apple and oranges comparison.
The Centurion is a medium tank with a 105mm main gun while the M41 has a wimpy 76mm.
have not seen the word "MARMALiSE" in use, since about '67 .. great werd
Too high, underpowered and armored. Hydraulic fluid was dangerous too. I drove an A1 and transferred out to trucks as tanks are dangerous.
This is true in 2023, but in the 1970s, with the technology available at that time, the M60 was more than adequate to get the job done, especially if the Russians came ever came through the Fulda Gap in Germany.
As a former tank crewman on the M60A1, I would feel much more confident in combat in 1976 than I would in 2023.
It's as obsolete now as the Sherman tank was in 1976.
Your pronunciation of Yom Kippur wasn’t bad, but “Arab” was awful!
Eh shit happens🤷🏻♂️
@@LearningHistoryTogether and usually does to Arab armies when they take on the Israeli's.
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son in that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life. John 3:16
Horrible
The M60 was agreat tank in its day. I remember them in Desert storm and they whopped ass on Iraqi T-72s. Yes I have T-72 parts I brought back.
I fueled these in germany in the late 70,s
I was a tank commander with C Company 4th Battalion 63rd Armor from 1978 to 1979 at Fort Riley.
After 3 years in Germany, Fort Riley Kansas really sucked. I hated it there.
Hey u want to make your channel blow up then find tank on tank single battles and as groups or company's vs who ever we were in combat with! And to get really good get a software designer to demonstrate it like in real life but it's in verticality! And have a great deep sounding person doing the play by play! And go next step add in tank crews alive or research people who personally operated them! Plus a huge think u need to figure out is wake up and start narrator loud proud and if voice overs wasn't my strong suit I'd find anyone good voice and can make u believe ur there! Last tell stuff behind the scenes no body knows about or heard of! Look all facts and make sure it's 100%true or people felt lied to facts don't add up! U make these changes and I guarantee you double ur viewers and once you start climbing up! Give me a shout out and tell me if I was right!