This tank brings back lots of good memories when I was a young soldier but was very happy to have it replaced by the M60A3 TTS where we had room inside the turret to move around.
77-79 with 3/33AR "Pickles" As an 11E10W1 I was previliaged to work on the M60A2. As a 19K40A8 I was surprised to see the CANT and other features incorporated into the M1 series tank. What we learned carried into today tank. This also include the Cannister round we fired in the 70's. The tank was scrapped as it was before its time.
Thanks Jag Soldier. Without people like you posting such vids, there is no chance to watch them at all. Most vids & documentaries focus only on anything that is largely available and easy to make. Vids like this, getting to watch is something miracle. TQ very very muchie muchie...
The M551 Sheridan and M60A2 were the only armored vehicles that used the Shillelagh. The Neoprene cartridge would not burn cleanly creating premature ignition when loading another Neoprene cart for the anti armor rounds,which was bad for the crew. A refit to the gun system was used that shot pressurized air blast in the breach. Also,the power of the cannon itself wrecked havoc on the fire control system and stressed the gun mounts. Shillelagh was laser guided. Cool looking,but,it was a bust.
You know in todays urban combat environment, this type of tank is far more useful than the long barreled Abrams that we use now. Imagine the Abrams like this with a short barrel, coaxially mounted machinegun, and possibly a 30MM Bushmaster. The ultimate urban armor.
Why would you need a shorter barrel? The abrams already has a shorter barrel(l44), at that point id imagine the velocity to take a pretty big hit. Id also imagine a 30mm to be a big stretch to add on top of a 120mm gun, either itll be too heavy or bulky or the ammuniton is too limited. Not to mention the added workload on the crew.
I tested these tanks at Yuma Proving Ground in 72 . I gave them low marks . To complicated and prone to fire control problems . Since the cancellation of the joint project with the Bundeswher MBT-70 program this was a stop gap measure , till the M-1 program . And the Germans enveloped they’re Leopard ll . America needed a new tank not a warmed over M-60 . The M-60A2 didn’t have a long service life .
When it worked it was awesome. My crew was #1 score, and my platoon was #1 score wise in annual qualifications in ‘77. Graffenburg. B company was A2s rest of battalion were A1s.
It was better on paper. The cannon system had some problems. The M551 Sheridan was the only other vehicle to use 152mm gun. The TC cupola was not a good idea,as the Israel experience with M60s proved to be more deadly to the Tank commanders' survival ,and , this info was sent to the U.S. Army.
FirstDagger Yes,the MBT70 did have a similar system. Only thing was the tank never got built for production. The Germans wanted too many bells and whistles. They parted ways from the US and developed the Leopard 2 mbt.
jay55also Fun fact the German variant did not have the 152mm gun and the problem was conversion from metric to imperial, also "The German 120mm gun proved excellent, but the XM-150 gun/launcher had serious problems.". Guess which gun the Leopard 2 and M1A1 Abrams uses, not to mention that the turbine engine caused problems in the American variant, now who wanted to many bells and whistles ?
FirstDagger Thanks,My memory was vague on the MBT70 program,and,I just gave a reflexive answer from the other comment post. I do remember the tank had a million and one things attached to it ,due to the then Soviet threat of their then super tank T-72. The Rheinmetall cannon which is smoothbore and is used in both Leopard2 and M1A1 is an effective gun. This is from my rusty memory,correct me if I'm wrong. The MBT70 had a variable height suspension system,could travel at speeds of 50mph in battle field conditions,The entire crew were stationed inside of the turret,and,used a 20mm retractable auto gun system instead of the usual 50cal. machine gun as it's secondary weapon. The fact the Germans and the US couldn't get straight what they wanted from a main battle tank( diesel vs. turbine power plant ) and the cost of the MBT70 could've reached a unit price of 5 million a piece back in the late 60s is another factor.
There was also an asbestos wrapping for each ammunition (protect against fire). Before being loaded into the chamber of the gun, it was necessary to remove the neoprene bag to prevent moisture problems. MGM-51 "Shillelagh" was not laser-guided because it does not exist in the 1960s The transmitter installed near the gun sent infrared flash (like a TV remote) to the missile to change its trajectory (Infra-red signal link system) This guidance system was not reliable
Must have been redesignated, When I was over there this was called the M-60-A1-E2. The A2 was the same as the A1, excepting for the addition of a gun stabilization system.
This vehicle was originally designated the M-60 A1-E2, there was an upgraded M-60 designated the A2, it had a stabilization feature for the main gun, but was otherwise, an M-60 A1 The Star ship did not remain long as the Gun/Launcher took a great deal of time to be ready for the next round, as well as the relative uselessness of a wire guided missile in forested Europe.
This tank had HEAT, CAN with the missle as its primary weapons of armor destruction. The period did not have the APFSDS and the APDS that was availalble had a inherited design flaw that was seen during another countries war.... as a result we improved on it and then changed its basic design. Thus today we have the APFSDS. FYI-the 152MM HEAT would have destoried anything that it impacted upon.
Honestly I think the concept for this tank is still pretty feasible. With better MG's and a reliable rocket system the A2 would do just fine even on today's battlefields.
Not completely sure about that... Against infantry the giant shells would be great, but probably garbage against tanks. The gun is not capable of firing darts, and even if it could, they would suck. We have much better and compact missile systems that probably do much better than a gun launched one, and even if we didn't, the LAHAT exists for the 120mm guns. It's also slower than a modern MBT whilst having way worse armor, anything bigger than an autocannon could destroy it. Maybe the Sheridan could do better, but I'm still not sure. Nothing that artillery can't already do.
Michał Pawlak Yep. Before the widespread issue of what back then were called Low Light Level Television, or now Thermal Imaging sights. These large White/'Pink'/IR search lights were common on Eastern and Western MBT's. The M-48, M-60, and M-60A1/A2 Pattons all used them for night/low light illumination and targeting. The M-60A3, first fielded in 1978, pioneered the widespread use of Thermal Imaging sighting systems on American heavy armor.
I was an Artillery mech,and I was interested in the different armored fighting vehicles and Howitzers before I went into the Army. Overall,the U.S. military had some weapons that were ahead of their time,but,performed poorly in reality. Instead of trying to solve problems with the systems,contracted companies did quick fixes that didn't really cut it,and sometimes compounded the flaws the systems had from the start. You don't want to be cleaning a gummed up breach in the midst of a fire fight.
@ReconTeam111 All but a few M60A2s were converted over time into M60A3s --- the turrets used in these conversions were actually ordered to build the M48A4, which was basically identical to the M48A3 aside from the turret. Thus, M60A3s were built, in place of what would have been M48A4s. When Congress caught a whiff of the M60A2's "cost-effectiveness", they decided that those turrets were needed on M60s, and the M48 upgrade could wait (which eventually resulted in the M48A5).
I guess that one of the blessings of our seven-year hitch in Southeast Asia was finding that the Sheridan with this same 152mm experiment didn't work all that well. Cost lives but what the heck.
We, 3 Bn 33 Armor 3 Armored Division and one other battalion were the only two units that still had the M60A2 in 1980 (West Germany). I never heard the nickname listed here but plenty of unkind ones about the terrible technical systems in the turret. We had a lot of civilians or defense contractors on hand trying to correct the problems.
@jlt1710 DUDE! I hit Aschaffenburg in late 83, and 3/69 armor had M60A3's by then, we transitioned to Bradleys and M1's right as I was leaving in nov 85. It's sad now, Ready Kaserne is abandoned, Logo's is gone. Best time I ever had anywhere, going to fests and fasching parties pretty much non stop.
@damaged01 Meh. Abrams is a little too big for urban conditions. More like this tank with modern armor and shtora-jammer would be the best tank for a cityfight.
THat's what a guy I worked with yrs ago told me; a Sheridan crew he served with got killed due to a rd exploding in the breach. A Sheridan finally got to kill a T-72 (I think) with a shilegah in the 91 war. He liked the tank except for that.
Fella's, FYI. Schweinfurt is closing, effective 01 OCT 2014. been here since 2008. the community, like most, as I was also in Augsburg and Bad Aibling, are really freaked out.
That gun would serve the US military better than the 120mm for most applications. Which have been occupation with no armored units to shoot at. That Shileligh cannister musta been NASTY!
Sloppy choice of words. I used the term Shileligh to refer to the 152mm gun/launcher when in fact it is the name of the guided missile. Rephrased, I believe a short-barrel, low-velocity 152mm GUN is superior to a long-barrel hypervelocity gun for infantry support. It's more maneuverable, can fire one helluva HE round, and doesn't explode the grunt's eardrums. For logistic's sake a 155 howitzer In the M1 would be awesome. Give it high elevation and a 25mm or 30mm chain gun + M240 coax.
It's funny to read comments about these obsolete tanks, as if it matters anymore. Folks on the Internet are truly amusing. It's really fun when ya get an East vs. West pissing contest going.
Just started playing Armored Warfare, and learned about this tanks existence there....every time my friend takes it out I refer to it as the "U.S.S. Enterprise" ...I mean its a "Starship" after all, lol.
Hmm no it won't. The gun is just too outdated for it's only able to fire HEAT shells and guided missiles, in which both of them are rather ineffective against composite armor, which is also the primary armor type used in modern MBTs. Modern MBTs should have a gun that's able to fire APFSDS shells with extremely high KE. As a matter of fact, due to the arrival of T-64, the first tank in the world that implied composite armor, M60A2s were decommissioned immediately because US army thinks these tanks no longer serve a satisfactory performance in combat for T-64 will have absolutely no problem penetrating Starship's armor at all practical range, M60A2's missiles couldn't pen T-64 unless closer than 1km/800m while the HEAT round could pen T-64 but lacked range of fire. Moreover, all 'Patton' MBT design chassis, ranging from M46 to M60A3 do not have a satisfactory mobility of the tank, making the tank incapable of the fast pace tank battle in modern days. For example, an SPAAG system called M247 Sergeant York was denied by US army to replace M163 because M247 system, being developed from M48's chassis and use similar engine and transmission as M48 Patton tanks, are just not able to catch up with either M1 Abrams or M2 Bradley. And that was an SPAAG which has a lower weight than average M60s, M60A2 were even slower. M60A2's design are actually pretty ideal if Soviet Union didn't develop T-64 so fast and used T-62 through the 60s instead, for it has more than plenty firepower and reasonable enough mobility against T-62 and T-55/54 series. However, the 152mm launcher was returned into a 105mm L7 in M60A3 for a reason.
It was called a deuce tank, most in the 2 ad were fitted with a dozier blade. Waste of money, and good luck whoever has one now. Each Battalion had a Deuce ( just one). I never saw one fire the 155 mm self propelled rocket, they were generally skipped over by armor crewman.
the low velocity gun was found to be problematic - the rest of the tank was mediocre - any Centurion Mk 5 on with its 105 L7 was superior in all aspects - indeed the early versions of the Abraham' s all used the Centurions canon
***** But the Starship certainly wouldn't have been around at that time - wasn't it an intermediate for the MBT-70, placing it around the 70's in terms of service date?
+Wolf In Arms The M60A2 did not enter service until the mid-late 70's, though it had been in service tests since the late 60's which continued until 1973. I would know, I served on those tests.
Brennan the War Lucario sure nothing in war has to look pretty to be effective but doesnt mean you cant point fun at something if it looks like the starship :p
I think there are documented cases where US tankers, more specifically, tank commanders, in M48 (had same machine gun turret in M60A2) chose to remove the machine gun turret and replaced it with a normal commander's hatch in Vietnam for such a machine gun turret not only blocks commander's view to the exterior of the tank, it also has a big M85 50cal MG in it, which further reduced and limited the interior space of the commander's position in the tank. And that thing increases the silhouette of the tank...
yea, the a2 had a 4400 mtr effective range ( conventional rnd) the t55s & t62 had 1500 mtr rng, @ we had a foot thick frontal armor,,,ruskie tanks are meds & lite,, so learn something !
From a scale modeller point of view this tank is very apreciated, but I believe the real one was a failure from all sides. Waste of money and resources.
to prove is a heavy tank! Not a medium! is!... medium tanks weigh 40 tons at ze most! and heavy tanks weigh 40 tons or more! the M60A2-starship weigh's 44 tons! and that is in the heavy tank zone! and! it has the firepower of a heavy tank to! And the thick armor of a heavy tank! but in a nutshell armor of a heavy tank firepower of a heavy and weight of a heavy tank but mobility of a medium that's it :)
+Timothys Fraud! It is a Main Battle Tank. An MBT combines the firepower of a WW2 Heavy Tank with the mobility of a WW2 Medium Tank. The first MBT was the Russian T54/T55 series. The US M60 series MBT was a follow on of the M48 series redesigned specifically to challenge the T54/T55 MBT. There is no weight limit on an MBT. That is why modern M1A2's can go as heavy as 70 tons.
This might sound weird.. world war 1 to world war 2 light tanks medium tanks and heavy tanks tank destroyers and self propelled guns .. modern day tanks. lights/AFV'S mediums/ tank destroyers. And heavy's/main battle tanks.. And artillery Don't blame me some one told me light tanks weigh 10 to 15 tons at the most if higher it's considered as a medium.. medium tanks weigh 15 to 40 tons at the highest if higher it's considered as a heavy or main battle tank .. and heavy tanks or main battle tanks weigh 40 tons or more or maybe 80 tons or so.. that's what I heard by someone who had a Lots of tank encyclopedias .. P.S to classify any tank it's just to find out what's it role.. type it up on Google or fire fox about tank classifications
Timothys Fraud! Why would I get mad at you? I was just pointing out that the MBT was the evolution of BOTH the medium and heavy tanks into one design. My post was not meant to degrade or attack you.
Yea, the Russians didn't have many "good" tanks. Their relatively poor, obsolescent, "throw as many men at the West, as you can," did develop fully manual fire control systems, which could not fire on the move, with accuracy, at all! TPD-K1 on T-72As, M1s, and Bs were a great example, of how to miss a target, and get killed! Love those 22 rounds under the turret, and in the crew compartments. Helps bake T-72s, with ease, when put against a Chieftain. England was vastly superior, to Russia.
Stop thinking Soviet tanks where crap! Their main problem was they didnt' switch to a modern layout like the Abrams or Leopard in the last generation of cold war tanks! When tests where conducted in the early 90's with the same ammunition used in the Gulf War the Abrams couldn't penetrate soviet tanks because of the Kontakt-5 ERA. Also the Iraqi T72's had manual turrets no IRV and definatley no stabilization, they where also manned by and led by idiots ! Even without the Kontakt-5 the best T72 and T80 tanks had equal or better frontal armor then the Abrams, proper ceramic armor. The Israelis goofed in the lebanon war and lost a bunch of Magrach tanks with state of the art 105mm ammunition. In tests using these led the soviets to up armor the vulnerable parts of the T72's which was mainly the hull and let it's Warsaw Pact clients use those advanced T72's. This was a massive improovement in Soviet combat power at a time when NATO was planning on achieveing the very kill ratios the soviet's prevented by this!
Lots of reasons. When fielding a new MBT one of the biggest concerns is commonality of parts/ammo with other tanks already in service. It's important to keep the upgrades made to a tank reasonable and not to far outlandish. In the instance of the M60A2 it failed in both of these areas. It created a need for a more complex supply chain of parts not common with any other tank, while using a complex weapon system that was not compatible with any other tanks ammunition. So right off the bat they created a stupidly expensive tank to operate. It weighed 5 tons more than a M60 Patton which was already to heavy to be considered a medium tank at 50 tons, so the M60A2 was sitting around 55 tons. While not particularly slow it was another logistical nightmare in transporting the tanks since it pushed a lot of the equipment used to transport armor to their limits. Another logistical issue were the aluminum road wheels used they were carried over from the M60A, but with steel wear plates bolted onto them. The wear plates required an extreme amount of maintenance upkeep to keep them in working order. If they didn't the track guide horns would destroy the road wheels. By far the worst issue was the M162 short/fat turret barrel. This created very high recoil when fired. Shell storage at most was 46 rounds, 20 rounds less than the M60A1. Take into account that the ammo was split between the 155/105mm tank shell and the missile it limited typical tank round storage even more. The shells were also delicate and humidity could render them useless. When they were fired they used what's called a combustible shell, this had a very bad flaw in that the shell could cause flare backs, sparks coming out of the breach of the gun. There were occasions where this happened ignited shells stored in the tank causing them to explode! The barrel as a result of the dual ammo system also had a very short life span. It needed to be changed out every 500 rounds. To top off this shit show of a tank. The whole reason for the short barrel 152mm was for it shoot the MGM-151 Shillelagh missile. Which was was utterly useless. The missile took a half mile to arm itself, and since it use radio guidance any noise/interference would cause hell on the missile guidance system. Even the radio from the tank could cause issues. So basically it could be fired only on extremely flat plans where the crew could see for miles and hope there was no one jamming radio guidance. So that's pretty much why this tank is considered a bust. There's a few more issues but you get the idea.
Antonio Klaić Yes, but not as many. The biggest issue the Sheridan had was the barrel actually cracking around the breach from the force of the recoil. This was fixed however with an updated version of the cannon. It's known as a fairly dependable light tank for it's time. Some are still in use around the world.
Not really no... russian tanks like much of their equipment was kind of shoddy... add in the massive development of AT missiles, the introduction of the Apache, and effectiveness of Lynx/Gazelle combos means the Soviets would have run down to their third and fourth wave of tanks before being able to break through NATO lines.... However since their doctrine called for Nuclear assault first, it's likely even Those tank forces would have failed.
DevTheBigManUno мнение одного из моих преподавателей - "всё зависит от выучки, выдержки и тактической подготовки военнослужащего" ... один из ветеранов преподаватель в ВУЗе где я учился в годы ВВ2 воевал на Кубани (край, область на юге России ) в 1943 году и сбивал устаревшим самолетом и-16 тип 24 мессершмитты БФ-109 серии Ф и Г в основном используя тактические приёмы и высокую маневренность и-16... сейчас на территории украины украинскую военную технику 3 и 4 (т-72, т-80, т-64) поколения которую используют неонацисты из национальной гвардии украины против гражданского населения, ополченцы донбасса выводят из строя (уничтожая) используя оружие времён второй мировой войны не только ПТРК .... а также из засад танки времён второй мировой войны ис-3 и т-34-85.
Warsaw Pact armor was decidedly inferior to that of NATO. The Soviet hope was that huge numbers would save their Bacon in a fight. Soviet designs lacked essential equipments such as radios in each vehicle, (they were still using flags in the 70's) they lacked fire control, and most of them had no turret floor, forcing the crew to walk around with the turret as it traversed, usually under manual power. This also made getting to floor storage munitions difficult, and slow, not something one should need to deal with in a fight. Munitions storage was also poorly thought out, particularly in the much flogged T-72. The ungainly, and failure prone automatic loader (aside from having a tendency to load the gunners arm) forced munitions to be stored around the circumference of the turret ring, which is exactly the aiming point taught to gunners in NATO. The full understanding of this glaring fault was very evident in Iraq, and Afghanistan, as every T-72 encountered went up in flames. It seems the only thing that was reliably automatic, was the Turret blowing off, and sailing high into the air. In truth, Warsaw Pact armor was second rate at best, and nothing like the propaganda they tried to lead NATO to believe.
Then you aptly point out yet another flaw in the Warsaw Pact's fighting capacity. It really doesn't matter, as long as even the occasional good crew will be squandered by deploying them in such poorly designed weapons. In this case it is their weapons that will get them killed.
This tank brings back lots of good memories when I was a young soldier but was very happy to have it replaced by the M60A3 TTS where we had room inside the turret to move around.
I worked on them at Depot installing the Fire Control Instruments. Did sync on a 45 degree ramp at our test track. loved firing laser.
During the Vietnam War, the M551 Sheridan had the M625A1 canister round loaded with thousands flechettes, it was excellent to open up bamboo thickets.
77-79 with 3/33AR "Pickles" As an 11E10W1 I was previliaged to work on the M60A2. As a 19K40A8 I was surprised to see the CANT and other features incorporated into the M1 series tank. What we learned carried into today tank. This also include the Cannister round we fired in the 70's. The tank was scrapped as it was before its time.
Thanks Jag Soldier. Without people like you posting such vids, there is no chance to watch them at all. Most vids & documentaries focus only on anything that is largely available and easy to make. Vids like this, getting to watch is something miracle. TQ very very muchie muchie...
Never thought of ourselves starship troopers when we had them in a co. 1/37 armor in 76-79
I know. We never called ourselves that. Not sure where that came from. Co A, 1/32 AR 3AD - the first, and BEST M60A2 BN in USAEUR
@@RossOneEyed I shit you not, it came from a model company. They came up with a cool name for it to sell more kits
@@RossOneEyed I second that Bco 1/32 3AD Cpt Kalb was CO
@@grumpy1948 Ah, CPT Kalb. I remember him. (I transferred over to HHC (S-3) in May/June of 76). Those were the days, my friend.
That groove in the rifling made me say HOLY CRAP out loud lololol genius.
lol description: "featured an entirely new low-profile turret"
It WAS low profile...then they slapped that tumor of a cupola on it
The M551 Sheridan and M60A2 were the only armored vehicles that used the Shillelagh. The Neoprene cartridge would not burn cleanly creating premature ignition when loading another Neoprene cart for the anti armor rounds,which was bad for the crew. A refit to the gun system was used that shot pressurized air blast in the breach. Also,the power of the cannon itself wrecked havoc on the fire control system and stressed the gun mounts. Shillelagh was laser guided. Cool looking,but,it was a bust.
You know in todays urban combat environment, this type of tank is far more useful than the long barreled Abrams that we use now. Imagine the Abrams like this with a short barrel, coaxially mounted machinegun, and possibly a 30MM Bushmaster. The ultimate urban armor.
Why would you need a shorter barrel? The abrams already has a shorter barrel(l44), at that point id imagine the velocity to take a pretty big hit. Id also imagine a 30mm to be a big stretch to add on top of a 120mm gun, either itll be too heavy or bulky or the ammuniton is too limited. Not to mention the added workload on the crew.
I tested these tanks at Yuma Proving Ground in 72 . I gave them low marks . To complicated and prone to fire control problems . Since the cancellation of the joint project with the Bundeswher MBT-70 program this was a stop gap measure , till the M-1 program . And the Germans enveloped they’re Leopard ll . America needed a new tank not a warmed over M-60 . The M-60A2 didn’t have a long service life .
When it worked it was awesome. My crew was #1 score, and my platoon was #1 score wise in annual qualifications in ‘77. Graffenburg. B company was A2s rest of battalion were A1s.
It was better on paper. The cannon system had some problems. The M551 Sheridan was the only other vehicle to use 152mm gun. The TC cupola was not a good idea,as the Israel experience with M60s proved to be more deadly to the Tank commanders' survival ,and , this info was sent to the U.S. Army.
They tried the 152mm gun (albeit a with a longer barrel) on the MBT-70 also.
FirstDagger
Yes,the MBT70 did have a similar system. Only thing was the tank never got built for production. The Germans wanted too many bells and whistles. They parted ways from the US and developed the Leopard 2 mbt.
jay55also Fun fact the German variant did not have the 152mm gun and the problem was conversion from metric to imperial, also "The German 120mm gun proved excellent, but the XM-150 gun/launcher had serious problems.". Guess which gun the Leopard 2 and M1A1 Abrams uses, not to mention that the turbine engine caused problems in the American variant, now who wanted to many bells and whistles ?
FirstDagger
Thanks,My memory was vague on the MBT70 program,and,I just gave a reflexive answer from the other comment post. I do remember the tank had a million and one things attached to it ,due to the then Soviet threat of their then super tank T-72. The Rheinmetall cannon which is smoothbore and is used in both Leopard2 and M1A1 is an effective gun. This is from my rusty memory,correct me if I'm wrong. The MBT70 had a variable height suspension system,could travel at speeds of 50mph in battle field conditions,The entire crew were stationed inside of the turret,and,used a 20mm retractable auto gun system instead of the usual 50cal. machine gun as it's secondary weapon. The fact the Germans and the US couldn't get straight what they wanted from a main battle tank( diesel vs. turbine power plant ) and the cost of the MBT70 could've reached a unit price of 5 million a piece back in the late 60s is another factor.
FirstDagger The German version did have the 152mm gun. The 120mm was planned but never installed. They moved on before that could happen.
There was also an asbestos wrapping for each ammunition (protect against fire).
Before being loaded into the chamber of the gun, it was necessary to remove the neoprene bag to prevent moisture problems.
MGM-51 "Shillelagh" was not laser-guided because it does not exist in the 1960s
The transmitter installed near the gun sent infrared flash (like a TV remote) to the missile to change its trajectory (Infra-red signal link system)
This guidance system was not reliable
That MASSIVE cupola is ridiculous
It was stylish in those days!
wonderful vid, thanks for the upload. Hard to find military vids nowadays that have substance.
Must have been redesignated, When I was over there this was called the M-60-A1-E2. The A2 was the same as the A1, excepting for the addition of a gun stabilization system.
This vehicle was originally designated the M-60 A1-E2, there was an upgraded M-60 designated the A2, it had a stabilization feature for the main gun, but was otherwise, an M-60 A1 The Star ship did not remain long as the Gun/Launcher took a great deal of time to be ready for the next round, as well as the relative uselessness of a wire guided missile in forested Europe.
I was a loader then later a driver on the A2 at Ayers Concern late 75 to 77. 3/33 C Company. Memories, thanks for the post.
How heavy was the shell? 152mm isn't small.
The M1 block series is just fine,very effective against enemy armor.
This tank had HEAT, CAN with the missle as its primary weapons of armor destruction. The period did not have the APFSDS and the APDS that was availalble had a inherited design flaw that was seen during another countries war.... as a result we improved on it and then changed its basic design. Thus today we have the APFSDS. FYI-the 152MM HEAT would have destoried anything that it impacted upon.
Do keep up the great work!! Not many could afford to do so. You are the hope of many military lovers. :-D
Honestly I think the concept for this tank is still pretty feasible. With better MG's and a reliable rocket system the A2 would do just fine even on today's battlefields.
True... But the M60-2000/M60-120 is acceptable!
Not completely sure about that... Against infantry the giant shells would be great, but probably garbage against tanks. The gun is not capable of firing darts, and even if it could, they would suck. We have much better and compact missile systems that probably do much better than a gun launched one, and even if we didn't, the LAHAT exists for the 120mm guns. It's also slower than a modern MBT whilst having way worse armor, anything bigger than an autocannon could destroy it. Maybe the Sheridan could do better, but I'm still not sure. Nothing that artillery can't already do.
WAs driver gunner and tank commander on m60a2 in Germany from 76-79. A company 1/37 armor
I was in Katterbach Too!
Cco 1/37 2nd Plt 77 to 79
charles crawford so what was that thing attached to the turret on the left? An IR searchlight?
Michał Pawlak Yep. Before the widespread issue of what back then were called Low Light Level Television, or now Thermal Imaging sights. These large White/'Pink'/IR search lights were common on Eastern and Western MBT's. The M-48, M-60, and M-60A1/A2 Pattons all used them for night/low light illumination and targeting. The M-60A3, first fielded in 1978, pioneered the widespread use of Thermal Imaging sighting systems on American heavy armor.
I was a gunner for the abrams sepv3 with Dco 1/63 AR 1ID from 09-12. Great times and one powerful machine
Thank God you didn't have to go to war in that thing.
this thing is awesome! i wish we still had tanks like this.
You must not have ever had to go down range in one!
I was an Artillery mech,and I was interested in the different armored fighting vehicles and Howitzers before I went into the Army. Overall,the U.S. military had some weapons that were ahead of their time,but,performed poorly in reality. Instead of trying to solve problems with the systems,contracted companies did quick fixes that didn't really cut it,and sometimes compounded the flaws the systems had from the start. You don't want to be cleaning a gummed up breach in the midst of a fire fight.
@ReconTeam111 All but a few M60A2s were converted over time into M60A3s --- the turrets used in these conversions were actually ordered to build the M48A4, which was basically identical to the M48A3 aside from the turret. Thus, M60A3s were built, in place of what would have been M48A4s.
When Congress caught a whiff of the M60A2's "cost-effectiveness", they decided that those turrets were needed on M60s, and the M48 upgrade could wait (which eventually resulted in the M48A5).
It had the ability to become a great tank if they had fixed the issues it had.
I guess that one of the blessings of our seven-year hitch in Southeast Asia was finding that the Sheridan with this same 152mm experiment didn't work all that well. Cost lives but what the heck.
We, 3 Bn 33 Armor 3 Armored Division and one other battalion were the only two units that still had the M60A2 in 1980 (West Germany). I never heard the nickname listed here but plenty of unkind ones about the terrible technical systems in the turret. We had a lot of civilians or defense contractors on hand trying to correct the problems.
The M60A2 gun fired the Shillelagh anti-tank missile as used on the Sheridan light tank.
It's going to be in warthunder now
Yep, and 3 years later it's hot garbage.
Is it possible that gun turret might blow up its own antenna accidentally?
where do you find these videos
I drove this tank at ft hood during it's field I may be driving in this film
"On The Way"
@jlt1710 DUDE! I hit Aschaffenburg in late 83, and 3/69 armor had M60A3's by then, we transitioned to Bradleys and M1's right as I was leaving in nov 85. It's sad now, Ready Kaserne is abandoned, Logo's is gone. Best time I ever had anywhere, going to fests and fasching parties pretty much non stop.
@bobridehereasy1
Hi,do you still have pictures from refoger exersices in germany?
canister ammunition??? is it a sort of shotgun shell but for tanks?
Thats right and it was lethal against infantry (in Vietnam).
We hated the turret as a driver it would swing around to match the commanders sight & it would crack you on the side of your head
Thank you so much!
@damaged01 Meh. Abrams is a little too big for urban conditions. More like this tank with modern armor and shtora-jammer would be the best tank for a cityfight.
The only thing louder than this tank is the volume of this video.
Drove one 76,77,78 ,Distinguished tank crew 77,78. 8th Inf, csc 5/68
Looks great. I'll take ten, please.
Only snag is the gun cannot be fired in anti-tank mode whilst the tank is moving.
THat's what a guy I worked with yrs ago told me; a Sheridan crew he served with got killed due to a rd exploding in the breach. A Sheridan finally got to kill a T-72 (I think) with a shilegah in the 91 war. He liked the tank except for that.
Fella's, FYI. Schweinfurt is closing, effective 01 OCT 2014. been here since 2008. the community, like most, as I was also in Augsburg and Bad Aibling, are really freaked out.
But the RED HORD had missiles too.
isn't that the same gun as the sheridan?
Yes
That gun would serve the US military better than the 120mm for most applications. Which have been occupation with no armored units to shoot at.
That Shileligh cannister musta been NASTY!
Pretty sure the 120 has lots of anti infantry shells and is much easier to reload.
This tank came to WarThunder
abram. not abraham. its not named after lincoln..
Powerfull tank, Machine of War
Confidence is a sad thing to say for that field tank
Sloppy choice of words. I used the term Shileligh to refer to the 152mm gun/launcher when in fact it is the name of the guided missile.
Rephrased, I believe a short-barrel, low-velocity 152mm GUN is superior to a long-barrel hypervelocity gun for infantry support. It's more maneuverable, can fire one helluva HE round, and doesn't explode the grunt's eardrums.
For logistic's sake a 155 howitzer In the M1 would be awesome. Give it high elevation and a 25mm or 30mm chain gun + M240 coax.
M109 fills that role
best tank in the world
They just needed to not be so lazy with the recoil suppression. Then they could have forced it into service for much longer! xD
It's funny to read comments about these obsolete tanks, as if it matters anymore. Folks on the Internet are truly amusing. It's really fun when ya get an East vs. West pissing contest going.
Just started playing Armored Warfare, and learned about this tanks existence there....every time my friend takes it out I refer to it as the "U.S.S. Enterprise" ...I mean its a "Starship" after all, lol.
Would nt this design would be a good idea for an urban tank
Hmm no it won't. The gun is just too outdated for it's only able to fire HEAT shells and guided missiles, in which both of them are rather ineffective against composite armor, which is also the primary armor type used in modern MBTs. Modern MBTs should have a gun that's able to fire APFSDS shells with extremely high KE. As a matter of fact, due to the arrival of T-64, the first tank in the world that implied composite armor, M60A2s were decommissioned immediately because US army thinks these tanks no longer serve a satisfactory performance in combat for T-64 will have absolutely no problem penetrating Starship's armor at all practical range, M60A2's missiles couldn't pen T-64 unless closer than 1km/800m while the HEAT round could pen T-64 but lacked range of fire. Moreover, all 'Patton' MBT design chassis, ranging from M46 to M60A3 do not have a satisfactory mobility of the tank, making the tank incapable of the fast pace tank battle in modern days. For example, an SPAAG system called M247 Sergeant York was denied by US army to replace M163 because M247 system, being developed from M48's chassis and use similar engine and transmission as M48 Patton tanks, are just not able to catch up with either M1 Abrams or M2 Bradley. And that was an SPAAG which has a lower weight than average M60s, M60A2 were even slower. M60A2's design are actually pretty ideal if Soviet Union didn't develop T-64 so fast and used T-62 through the 60s instead, for it has more than plenty firepower and reasonable enough mobility against T-62 and T-55/54 series. However, the 152mm launcher was returned into a 105mm L7 in M60A3 for a reason.
As a old M-60a2 driver what you think you know is as wrong as the day is long. NO tanker ever called an "A deuce" a "Starship".
American KV2
I'm not Russian and you're the one making ignorant statements. The Kobra missile has been in service since 1975, Refleks since 1985.
replace the 50 in the cupola with a asp-30mm cannon, use he and thermobaric rounds for direct dsupport fire from the big gun, boom american bmpt
It was called a deuce tank, most in the 2 ad were fitted with a dozier blade. Waste of money, and good luck whoever has one now. Each Battalion had a Deuce ( just one). I never saw one fire the 155 mm self propelled rocket, they were generally skipped over by armor crewman.
The gun/launcher was the picture of reliability compared to that god damn M85.
the low velocity gun was found to be problematic - the rest of the tank was mediocre - any Centurion Mk 5 on with its 105 L7 was superior in all aspects - indeed the early versions of the Abraham' s all used the Centurions canon
This video makes me glad that we never went to war in the Cuban missile crisis, T62 and T64 would of shit all over this awful tank.
The Cuban Missile Crisis was long over before any model of the M60 saw service
***** Yup 1 year I stand corrected.
***** But the Starship certainly wouldn't have been around at that time - wasn't it an intermediate for the MBT-70, placing it around the 70's in terms of service date?
***** Yeah, I remember the latter bit. But just making sure on the former!
+Wolf In Arms The M60A2 did not enter service until the mid-late 70's, though it had been in service tests since the late 60's which continued until 1973. I would know, I served on those tests.
It looks like a tumor on treads to me
Well, It doesn't need to be pretty to be dangerous
It appears to me as beautiful, just in a different way.
the .50 turret is a little too much
Brennan the War Lucario sure nothing in war has to look pretty to be effective but doesnt mean you cant point fun at something if it looks like the starship :p
I think there are documented cases where US tankers, more specifically, tank commanders, in M48 (had same machine gun turret in M60A2) chose to remove the machine gun turret and replaced it with a normal commander's hatch in Vietnam for such a machine gun turret not only blocks commander's view to the exterior of the tank, it also has a big M85 50cal MG in it, which further reduced and limited the interior space of the commander's position in the tank. And that thing increases the silhouette of the tank...
Bad Ass
yea, the a2 had a 4400 mtr effective range ( conventional rnd) the t55s & t62 had 1500 mtr rng, @ we had a foot thick frontal armor,,,ruskie tanks are meds & lite,, so learn something !
From a scale modeller point of view this tank is very apreciated, but I believe the real one was a failure from all sides. Waste of money and resources.
to prove is a heavy tank! Not a medium! is!... medium tanks weigh 40 tons at ze most! and heavy tanks weigh 40 tons or more! the M60A2-starship weigh's 44 tons! and that is in the heavy tank zone! and! it has the firepower of a heavy tank to! And the thick armor of a heavy tank! but in a nutshell armor of a heavy tank firepower of a heavy and weight of a heavy tank but mobility of a medium that's it :)
+Timothys Fraud! It is a Main Battle Tank. An MBT combines the firepower of a WW2 Heavy Tank with the mobility of a WW2 Medium Tank. The first MBT was the Russian T54/T55 series. The US M60 series MBT was a follow on of the M48 series redesigned specifically to challenge the T54/T55 MBT. There is no weight limit on an MBT. That is why modern M1A2's can go as heavy as 70 tons.
This might sound weird.. world war 1 to world war 2 light tanks medium tanks and heavy tanks tank destroyers and self propelled guns .. modern day tanks.
lights/AFV'S
mediums/ tank destroyers.
And heavy's/main battle tanks..
And artillery
Don't blame me some one told me light tanks weigh 10 to 15 tons at the most if higher it's considered as a medium.. medium tanks weigh 15 to 40 tons at the highest if higher it's considered as a heavy or main battle tank .. and heavy tanks or main battle tanks weigh 40 tons or more or maybe 80 tons or so.. that's what I heard by someone who had a Lots of tank encyclopedias .. P.S to classify any tank it's just to find out what's it role.. type it up on Google or fire fox about tank classifications
Timothys Fraud! Why would I get mad at you? I was just pointing out that the MBT was the evolution of BOTH the medium and heavy tanks into one design. My post was not meant to degrade or attack you.
Okay I understand :). But a MBT in a nutshell is 90% heavy and 10% medium
+Timothys Fraud! Probably 60% heavy tank and 40% medium, mbts do you many medium tank traits.
As Luke Skywalker said "what a piece of junk"
Yea, the Russians didn't have many "good" tanks. Their relatively poor, obsolescent, "throw as many men at the West, as you can," did develop fully manual fire control systems, which could not fire on the move, with accuracy, at all! TPD-K1 on T-72As, M1s, and Bs were a great example, of how to miss a target, and get killed! Love those 22 rounds under the turret, and in the crew compartments. Helps bake T-72s, with ease, when put against a Chieftain. England was vastly superior, to Russia.
The Chieftain was superior especially in terms of mobility.
who's here BC of ARMORED WARFARE :)
why i'm here
Stop thinking Soviet tanks where crap!
Their main problem was they didnt' switch to a modern layout like the Abrams or Leopard in the last generation of cold war tanks!
When tests where conducted in the early 90's with the same ammunition used in the Gulf War the Abrams couldn't penetrate soviet tanks because of the Kontakt-5 ERA. Also the Iraqi T72's had manual turrets no IRV and definatley no stabilization, they where also manned by and led by idiots !
Even without the Kontakt-5 the best T72 and T80 tanks had equal or better frontal armor then the Abrams, proper ceramic armor.
The Israelis goofed in the lebanon war and lost a bunch of Magrach tanks with state of the art 105mm ammunition. In tests using these led the soviets to up armor the vulnerable parts of the T72's which was mainly the hull and let it's Warsaw Pact clients use those advanced T72's.
This was a massive improovement in Soviet combat power at a time when NATO was planning on achieveing the very kill ratios the soviet's prevented by this!
AdurianJ they are crap...
Ronan B Soviet era tanks are some of the best tanks, they just suffer in one area, western propaganda.
iwas a gunner on the m60a2
What was it like on the inside of one of these starships?
So was I jc at Fort Knox,KY in 1979.
Maybe the exact tank you have used is now operating in my nation,Taiwan.
Oh Yeah LOL
We need a light tank 20 to 30 tons air droppable M8 Buford a new Gavin possible BAE Systems is got a MF P tank in the mix
bravo usa 1 more junk.
Ah yes, a T72 fanboy
Probably the worst weapon system ever created.
+John Connor what was so horrible about it ?
its look looks like a blob and this low profile? lol
Lots of reasons. When fielding a new MBT one of the biggest concerns is commonality of parts/ammo with other tanks already in service. It's important to keep the upgrades made to a tank reasonable and not to far outlandish. In the instance of the M60A2 it failed in both of these areas. It created a need for a more complex supply chain of parts not common with any other tank, while using a complex weapon system that was not compatible with any other tanks ammunition. So right off the bat they created a stupidly expensive tank to operate.
It weighed 5 tons more than a M60 Patton which was already to heavy to be considered a medium tank at 50 tons, so the M60A2 was sitting around 55 tons. While not particularly slow it was another logistical nightmare in transporting the tanks since it pushed a lot of the equipment used to transport armor to their limits. Another logistical issue were the aluminum road wheels used they were carried over from the M60A, but with steel wear plates bolted onto them. The wear plates required an extreme amount of maintenance upkeep to keep them in working order. If they didn't the track guide horns would destroy the road wheels.
By far the worst issue was the M162 short/fat turret barrel. This created very high recoil when fired. Shell storage at most was 46 rounds, 20 rounds less than the M60A1. Take into account that the ammo was split between the 155/105mm tank shell and the missile it limited typical tank round storage even more. The shells were also delicate and humidity could render them useless. When they were fired they used what's called a combustible shell, this had a very bad flaw in that the shell could cause flare backs, sparks coming out of the breach of the gun. There were occasions where this happened ignited shells stored in the tank causing them to explode! The barrel as a result of the dual ammo system also had a very short life span. It needed to be changed out every 500 rounds. To top off this shit show of a tank. The whole reason for the short barrel 152mm was for it shoot the MGM-151 Shillelagh missile. Which was was utterly useless. The missile took a half mile to arm itself, and since it use radio guidance any noise/interference would cause hell on the missile guidance system. Even the radio from the tank could cause issues. So basically it could be fired only on extremely flat plans where the crew could see for miles and hope there was no one jamming radio guidance. So that's pretty much why this tank is considered a bust. There's a few more issues but you get the idea.
JoesGLI Oh. Did the Sheridan experience these problems too ?
Antonio Klaić Yes, but not as many. The biggest issue the Sheridan had was the barrel actually cracking around the breach from the force of the recoil. This was fixed however with an updated version of the cannon. It's known as a fairly dependable light tank for it's time. Some are still in use around the world.
'Compact' Lmfa
If the Russians had come the average life of an American tank would have been about 5 minutes.
Not really no... russian tanks like much of their equipment was kind of shoddy... add in the massive development of AT missiles, the introduction of the Apache, and effectiveness of Lynx/Gazelle combos means the Soviets would have run down to their third and fourth wave of tanks before being able to break through NATO lines.... However since their doctrine called for Nuclear assault first, it's likely even Those tank forces would have failed.
DevTheBigManUno мнение одного из моих преподавателей - "всё зависит от выучки, выдержки и тактической подготовки военнослужащего" ... один из ветеранов преподаватель в ВУЗе где я учился в годы ВВ2 воевал на Кубани (край, область на юге России ) в 1943 году и сбивал устаревшим самолетом и-16 тип 24 мессершмитты БФ-109 серии Ф и Г в основном используя тактические приёмы и высокую маневренность и-16... сейчас на территории украины украинскую военную технику 3 и 4 (т-72, т-80, т-64) поколения которую используют неонацисты из национальной гвардии украины против гражданского населения, ополченцы донбасса выводят из строя (уничтожая) используя оружие времён второй мировой войны не только ПТРК .... а также из засад танки времён второй мировой войны ис-3 и т-34-85.
Warsaw Pact armor was decidedly inferior to that of NATO. The Soviet hope was that huge numbers would save their Bacon in a fight. Soviet designs lacked essential equipments such as radios in each vehicle, (they were still using flags in the 70's) they lacked fire control, and most of them had no turret floor, forcing the crew to walk around with the turret as it traversed, usually under manual power. This also made getting to floor storage munitions difficult, and slow, not something one should need to deal with in a fight. Munitions storage was also poorly thought out, particularly in the much flogged T-72. The ungainly, and failure prone automatic loader (aside from having a tendency to load the gunners arm) forced munitions to be stored around the circumference of the turret ring, which is exactly the aiming point taught to gunners in NATO. The full understanding of this glaring fault was very evident in Iraq, and Afghanistan, as every T-72 encountered went up in flames. It seems the only thing that was reliably automatic, was the Turret blowing off, and sailing high into the air.
In truth, Warsaw Pact armor was second rate at best, and nothing like the propaganda they tried to lead NATO to believe.
beardo52 всё зависит от людей какая выучка и слаженность экипажа таков и результат .... "оружие само по себе не убивает .. убивают люди"!
Then you aptly point out yet another flaw in the Warsaw Pact's fighting capacity. It really doesn't matter, as long as even the occasional good crew will be squandered by deploying them in such poorly designed weapons.
In this case it is their weapons that will get them killed.