I crewed M60A1s annd TCed M60A3s, I never had issue with the M85. The feed system in the cupolas was the major problem. The M73 was a piece of junk though. I also crewed M551s so know the gun launcher well. The scavenger systems primary job was to blow out any remains of a fired round so it wouldn't cook off the next combustible case round. Love the series by the way. Death Before Dismount!
I was on them 1981-83...1/37 Armor 1st AD, Katterbach... Ft Knox Instructors for AOB and above field grades may have called them Starships but the crews called them Pig Boats.
One alternative I've heard to the origin of the name "Starship" was that it referred to the quote-un-quote "space age" technology used to build the M60A2s
I agree having crewed the Sheridan at the same time where everything was analog where we wondered what broke inside the tank every time we fired the 152mm main gun. The first three road wheels gets off the ground when it fires. So I can see the Spaceship sounds cool. It outlasted the Sheridan by 3 years. We traded in our Sheridan for M60A1 Passive in 1978.
I was in 1/64 3rd ID Kitzingen Germany 1976-78 and the A2 the starship, it was a dog. I was on bunker on the 1200 meter moving target back when little Sp4 at Graf. Ten A2s fired two shots a peace at target that in our A1 rise TTS considered a give me.out twenty rounds fired the A2s hit it once and nicked once, and know they weren’t bad tankers, they just a bad tank. Keep up the good work I continue enjoying your podcasts. Jim Stitt Lt. Col. Armor USA Ret.
As the Abrams and Bradley’s came into service my cbt engr battalion received a unit (platoon?) of the engineer version with that honking huge short bore (210?) cannon. God that was a beauty.
I did Armor Officers Basic in 75. I went to M60A1, some of my classmates went M60A2 or Sheridan. we trained on all but the A2 guys got more training in them. In 1st AD the A2s were all in one battalion 4-37. In 3rd ID they had one A2 company in three battalions. Main problem was the electronics were not reliable. As for the MG, by 76 the M73 had been replaced by the product improved M219. You could now shoot 10 rounds before a jam instead of 5. I agree with previous comment. The M-85 was great but as my platoon sergeant taught me, you had to clean and lube it very well which meant disassembling down way past operator authorized disassembly. Nice to flick the fire select switch and shoot 1000 rds a minute.
This tank is pretty much contemporary with the S-Tank. The S-Tank has amazing HEAT protection but uses a Kinetic round it'self in it's extra long L7 105mm gun. The S-tank armor layout is great for APDS rounds too but run into huge problems with the APFSDS rounds of the 80's because it's so dependent on sloping.
A great post. For reference, here's the official US Army spin on the 152mm Gun/Missile Launcher and the Shilealeigh Missile, as mounted in the ill--starred M551 Sheridan Cav Tank: M551 Sheridan Tank - Assault Vehicle Weapons Test - 1960's From this perspective it all looks so calm and logical . . . I'm glad that Armored Warfare gives you plenty of time to reflect on so many varied duties. Otherwise it might seem a bit overwhelming to the novice.
A point of correction, production did not "begin in 1975", virtually all of the vehicles were already completed and languishing in storage awaiting acceptance, pending the Initial Production Test of '73-'74 (on which I served). Introduction into the inventory likely began about '75, however, but I can't be precise about that having ETS'd prior to that.
I got an up-close look at an M60-A2 at the Patton Museum's storage facility at Fort Knox in 1993. Odd and unusual tank. I can't believe no one saw the problems with the gun-missile system coming.
Important stepping stone... Stab and designate capability. Also i was a master at setting my TCs M85 up (on the M60A3) and it always performed. M2 is easier to maintain.
As a former 11E20W1, I can tell you we never called it a "starship." We did have several colorful names for it, most NSFW. I much preferred the 60A1 over the A2. But I can say that being a Bandit was a great experience. 1/32 Armor, 3AD, the first, and BEST M60A2 battalion in USAEUR!
Love the video's, very well done- good overview- Chafee was excellent due to it's actually being driven! A few more popular tanks:t34's, shermans and the like would be appreciated but then again alot of the prototypes shown are falling apart- better now than never, keep the video's coming :-)
I went to war in an M60a1 (Desert Storm) equipped with an M85 jamamatic .50 cal MG. Not sure when or if they were replaced on the M60's series but we sure got stuck with it and yes it jammed in combat!
I guess I'm the only person to crew one of these things for 3 years and never have any significant problems, everything in my A2 worked pretty well with the one exception of that POS M73 coax. I fired 2 missles with it and never encountered any issuesother than the usual tank stuff like heater never working in the winter and hatch seals leaking right above the back of your neck.
A heater!Cheiftain NEVER had a heater,the only thing we had was the Boiling vessel in the turret so we could have hot drinks while we froze our bollocks off!
@chrisblack6258 tried it a couple of times, if I remember correctly it jumped the lead ahead by 3 or 5 mils. I never had much use for it. For me personally it was easier to track the target manually.
Crews called them A2 or Stubby I have a friend who lead a platoon of A2s and later one of A3s. He was in the Fulda gap area with the A2s loved the APERS. Many of the problems were recoil damaging the electrical parts of the missile package. The few Shilealeigh fired in Iraq did well the range was too short and the minimum range was way too long.
I trained on the M60A2 at Ft. Knox in 1977, because the vehicle was scheduled to be issued to 2-5 Cav, 1st Cav Division. That idea was scrapped and the battalion held on to it's ratty old M601 tanks until the new M1 was fielded there in maybe 1979 for OT2 testing. I never heard the vehicle called Starship, just M60A2. I can verify that the M73 and M85 machine guns were crap on my M60A1 tanks. Also at the time I heard an anecdotal explanation of the turret design. I was told the Army looked at the tanks destroyed in the Korean war and found a lot of rounds hit on the sides of the turret, so they minimized the front exposure with the new turret. Turns out their stats were flawed because a lot of turrets were destroyed by US forces to prevent capture by the Chinese. Don't know it that story is true or not. The M60A2 cupola had a cool fast electric turret with a target designate system. The commander could point his machine gun at a target different from the turret orientation, hit an override switch and the main gun would align to that position.
Since most of the vehicles there run, and they will have to move due to the action/relocation, do you think it viable to record some footage of them running? I think it'd be really cool
The battalion l was in had 4( late 70s early 80s) they were parked in the combat engineers motor pool and they came out maybe once or twice when l was stationed there for 2 years l presumed for gunnery otherwise they were never used. The main was the M60A1s than later were the M60A3s.
I never met a tanker, who served on the M60A2 OR the Sheridan, who had any use for the weapons system(s) or the ammo selection....Except for some Vietnam Veterans who absolutely LOVED the 152mm "Anti-Jungle/Anti-Personnel Round"....
The MBT-70, the Sheridan, the Starship, all used 152mm projectiles. How do these projectiles compare in mass to 140mm rounds which maybe used in future M1 or Leopard 2 designs (other than by 12mm in diameter)? Did they use 2 part ammo thus making them more manageable? Or is it that the 152mm ammo used a smaller charge compared to contemporary rounds which meant that they were easier to handle.
I find the idea of commander having to share his cupola with an HMG gross. Even with good ventilation system that machinegun is just too close to commander's head.
raytheon has done upgrades for these tanks,reactive armor,increase of 200 Hp to 950 from 750,stabilized 120 MM cannon,,, wt of 60 tons vs the abrams 65 tons, if we get into a shootin war,and need to get max loads hardware and rounds downrange 6k miles,would the M1 of ww 2 apply?,,as in 20 tons extra of supplies along with each freighter?
At last a new documentary if somewhat a bit shortish but always interesting! But I prefer more info like your previous issues! Yes it was the starship so disliked by its crew because of its absurd complexity and it was a nightmare to maintain! To make matters worse it also suffered from defective ammo that had to be handled with care and had a very bad scavenger sistem, at least with the first series, so every time it was shooting the crew almost had to bail out so noxious it was inside the turret! The turret itself was ballistically a disaster with an absurd commanders turret that looked ready to be shot off! But who was the genius that designed that turret? Couldn't it be easier to adapt the normal turret for that lousy cannon?
I was a gunner on one, from January 1976. The role was not to be in the front line,but back from the edge of the battle. If anything broke through, the long range of the missile was put to use. The HEAT,HE and cannister rounds were only for use if we came upon an enemy vehicle The small front of the turret, would make it hard to see, in a defilade position. We never had serious problems with the CBSS scavenging system.And,we never thought of it as a "Starship",that had to be a later appellation.
Thanks for the much needed info! But why such negative reports from not only specialized magazines but also from tanks experts? Mind you that I'm not an expert but simply a enthusiastic reader on tank warfare!
i am so lucky i was in an A3 from the things i hear for that A2....and i was dumb enough that i asked "if we have A1 and A3,what happened to the A2 model" while i was in training......the look of the seargeant was so....disgusted.....at least now i know why
Blargal D'Alien I too sever on the M60A2 in Ansbach Germany with the 1st armor Div. I too never heard of the word Starship for the M60A2. And we never had a problem with the M60A2 as Paolo Viti said. Maybe state side M60A2 did? Yes we were in the rear If the warsaw pack broke thought us, then the rest of Europe was open to them. Or only job was to hold them off for 3 days until help came from the states. I was on the M60A1, M60A2, M60A3, and the M1 with the 1st and 3rd armor Div. Germany
I was with Charlie compamy , 1st tracked vehicle Bn out of camp Schwab Okinawa . "Driver" TC Lt Shehan. Everything worked well until there devloped Transmission problems. It would slip not allowing ti to drive out of a shallow ditch . The best weapon we had is the Sabot ant the tatical spotlight that could light up the SUN. In my opinion , we fixed most of the problems . The M85 was good but ammo dependant . . I transfered to LAI Camp Lejeune and was with the LAV's through Deasert Storm but saw plenty od M60A2's performing wonderfully Would have perfered a gas operated 50 ,, M2 or even just a very good lot of ammo . ,,,, I would still take 10 M60A2's over a single Abrams . The 05 kicked ass and the 55 of the abrams was just eisier to clean.
P.S. what is it with the audio that completely mutes you when you don't speak, the disappearance? It's just low ambient sounds but it's really noticeable and annoying when it disappear!
lol i got to load on a m60a2 at fort hood in 1979 or 1980 , i can not remember the date ,as most units at fort hood had crews of only had 3 people and it was normal for people to load on other crew tanks
I'm sorry that I have made so much hassle with my comments but my statements are what I read from various sources and books written by people who seems to know their stuff! As stated before I'm not a tanker but just an enthusiastic reader on anything that is a tank! But the point remains that USA and Russia both utilized a somewhat similar concept and both were after some years quickly kicked out of service! So apparently some problems did exist! Could anybody enlight me on this issue?
+Paolo Viti When I talked to former M551 users when I was in ('79 - '83) many said that the missle guidance system often failed, that it could not take the stresses when a conventioal round was fired. One SSG told me he launched a Shillelagh into (the former) East Germany from Wildflecken after they fired conventional ammo.
looks like a t49/sheridan on steroids. i think this would be good in the game if it was balanced as a tier 9/tier 10 light tank (if they ever add them) extending out from the t49 line. personally i think it's not fair to call these "mediums" and in fact i've been having the best luck in my m46 by playing it as an "assault light" by focusing on spotting, flanking, poking ridges, taking out soft targets, as i believe it suits the tank better given the stats and the fact that other tanks can basically "tank" better anyways. seems like this playstyle could be extended further. idk just my idea.
The military keeps trying to get rid of the Browning M2, just like the A-10, and each time has been an epic failure. Whether it's for legacy, money, or politics, when you try to fix something that isn't broken, it will cost you and others.
Good video, but a bit short and to clean/documentary like/technical... I preferre how it was before, more personal and funny, with you climbing around the tank, etc...
This isn't a "full" Chieftain's Hatch episode. It's part of his "Snapshot" series as the Littlefield collection being sold off soon, the Chief is trying to get to as many of them as possible in a short amount of time with these bite sized episodes.
The only problem I can remember was the M85 TC 50 cal MG, Blargal D'Alien should remember this lol... The 50 cal was Belt Feed upside down! And the M214 turret MG was no good, it would fire 2 or 3 rounds and stop! Later we got the M240 MG, from Israel, boy did that MG rock and roll!
Gunner C-23. Picked up my A2 in Jan 76, used it until I DFEROSed in 78.OUr M85 never jammed.. Th coax was the m 219, mine never jammed. I shot 13 missiles, one popped out of the tube and crashed in front of the tank. Another went wobbly up and d own, then crashed. Our tank had the bore evacuator, but it was inoperative. ALL ISSUED A2s HAD CBSS for the combustible cartridge case ammo
The M85 was a bad execution of a good idea. The idea was to make a .50 cal that eliminated the task of headspace and timing, making it more akin to the rapid change barrel system of the M60 MG, but the engineers just could not seem to get it right. As for the M60A2 being a "failure", again it was not the fault of the vehicle as it was in fact a logical design, but like many ideas propagated in the 1970s such as "ammunition standardization" that dropped the .45ACP in favor of the 9mm parabellum, it was politics, not engineering, that killed the M60A2. The "NATO standardization" that occurred in the 1970s was, in part, killed by U.S. politics in that one of the NATO standards was supposed to be everyone using the same ammo for rifles and light MGs, but America being the "innovators", blew up that plan, as the Brits used the FN and the L7, LMG, and the Germans the G3 and MG1 (both 7.62mm) the U.S. retained the M16 and brought in the M249, both in 5.56mm.
Agreed,if it wasn't for NATO rules,the Cheiftain might have had a decent engine,instead of the bag of bolts due to trying to get a multi fuel capability,(which everybody else ignored)
Now that missile technology has advanced, I wonder if large cannons are facing another challenge. Many new armoured vehicles use missiles paired with a 30/40mm gun.
soundslave They do excel at different things but vehicles and tanks with larger cannons can also have autocannons and extra machine guns. MBTs have very good passive defence systems and armour; defence systems that detonate missiles and rockets and much better protection vs large guns and protection vs law weapons and the ability to carry that protection and still be very mobile. Bigger main guns also pack a much bigger punch versus armoured and fortified units and positions because of their much larger projectiles. I don't think tanks have much to worry about when it comes to being over taken by lighter afv xD
Emanicas I was talking about just replacing the cannon, but keeping the armour. Like an abrams but with the missiles and autocannons. Then it's got the armour of a tank but the guns of the IFV.
CKshouta the 240MM M1 of the T92 could also fire a nuclear round, since the 240MM gun at the time was a heavy howitzer and fired a round about twice to three times as heavy as the ISU could, also countrary to the ingame T92, the 240MM M1 had a range of 23KM.
Why have a tank review if everything is negative and was a failure. Why not review the MBT M60A1 ? This was a waist of film. The M60 was a legendary and Historic tank. Why Chueftain?
I crewed M60A1s annd TCed M60A3s, I never had issue with the M85. The feed system in the cupolas was the major problem. The M73 was a piece of junk though. I also crewed M551s so know the gun launcher well. The scavenger systems primary job was to blow out any remains of a fired round so it wouldn't cook off the next combustible case round. Love the series by the way. Death Before Dismount!
The Iraq and Afghanistan wars would like to have a chat with you on that one
@@joeblow9657 Yeah with your stinky mouths.
honestly, i had tell you got a lucks, if without cupola, it's very dangerous to pop your heads up.
I was on them 1981-83...1/37 Armor 1st AD, Katterbach... Ft Knox Instructors for AOB and above field grades may have called them Starships but the crews called them Pig Boats.
I was a Scout with 1/37 a few years earlier.
Boy its been awhile. Always happy to see these pop up on my feed! Great work.
One alternative I've heard to the origin of the name "Starship" was that it referred to the quote-un-quote "space age" technology used to build the M60A2s
I agree having crewed the Sheridan at the same time where everything was analog where we wondered what broke inside the tank every time we fired the 152mm main gun. The first three road wheels gets off the ground when it fires. So I can see the Spaceship sounds cool. It outlasted the Sheridan by 3 years. We traded in our Sheridan for M60A1 Passive in 1978.
I was in 1/64 3rd ID Kitzingen Germany 1976-78 and the A2 the starship, it was a dog. I was on bunker on the 1200 meter moving target back when little Sp4 at Graf. Ten A2s fired two shots a peace at target that in our A1 rise TTS considered a give me.out twenty rounds fired the A2s hit it once and nicked once, and know they weren’t bad tankers, they just a bad tank. Keep up the good work I continue enjoying your podcasts.
Jim Stitt
Lt. Col. Armor
USA Ret.
As the Abrams and Bradley’s came into service my cbt engr battalion received a unit (platoon?) of the engineer version with that honking huge short bore (210?) cannon.
God that was a beauty.
M728 CEV
165mm demolition gun
I did Armor Officers Basic in 75. I went to M60A1, some of my classmates went M60A2 or Sheridan. we trained on all but the A2 guys got more training in them. In 1st AD the A2s were all in one battalion 4-37. In 3rd ID they had one A2 company in three battalions. Main problem was the electronics were not reliable. As for the MG, by 76 the M73 had been replaced by the product improved M219. You could now shoot 10 rounds before a jam instead of 5. I agree with previous comment. The M-85 was great but as my platoon sergeant taught me, you had to clean and lube it very well which meant disassembling down way past operator authorized disassembly. Nice to flick the fire select switch and shoot 1000 rds a minute.
This tank is pretty much contemporary with the S-Tank.
The S-Tank has amazing HEAT protection but uses a Kinetic round it'self in it's extra long L7 105mm gun.
The S-tank armor layout is great for APDS rounds too but run into huge problems with the APFSDS rounds of the 80's because it's so dependent on sloping.
A great post.
For reference, here's the official US Army spin on the 152mm Gun/Missile Launcher and the Shilealeigh Missile, as mounted in the ill--starred M551 Sheridan Cav Tank:
M551 Sheridan Tank - Assault Vehicle Weapons Test - 1960's
From this perspective it all looks so calm and logical . . . I'm glad that Armored Warfare gives you plenty of time to reflect on so many varied duties. Otherwise it might seem a bit overwhelming to the novice.
A point of correction, production did not "begin in 1975", virtually all of the vehicles were already completed and languishing in storage awaiting acceptance, pending the Initial Production Test of '73-'74 (on which I served). Introduction into the inventory likely began about '75, however, but I can't be precise about that having ETS'd prior to that.
We were the first battalion in USAEUR to draw them, in the summer of '75. I was at Know in A2 training in Jun '74.
I got an up-close look at an M60-A2 at the Patton Museum's storage facility at Fort Knox in 1993. Odd and unusual tank. I can't believe no one saw the problems with the gun-missile system coming.
Chieftain, would you consider doing a video on the M60A3?
And yes we called it the STARSHIP.
Important stepping stone... Stab and designate capability. Also i was a master at setting my TCs M85 up (on the M60A3) and it always performed. M2 is easier to maintain.
As a former 11E20W1, I can tell you we never called it a "starship." We did have several colorful names for it, most NSFW. I much preferred the 60A1 over the A2. But I can say that being a Bandit was a great experience. 1/32 Armor, 3AD, the first, and BEST M60A2 battalion in USAEUR!
Love the video's, very well done- good overview- Chafee was excellent due to it's actually being driven! A few more popular tanks:t34's, shermans and the like would be appreciated but then again alot of the prototypes shown are falling apart- better now than never, keep the video's coming :-)
I went to war in an M60a1 (Desert Storm) equipped with an M85 jamamatic .50 cal MG. Not sure when or if they were replaced on the M60's series but we sure got stuck with it and yes it jammed in combat!
I guess I'm the only person to crew one of these things for 3 years and never have any significant problems, everything in my A2 worked pretty well with the one exception of that POS M73 coax. I fired 2 missles with it and never encountered any issuesother than the usual tank stuff like heater never working in the winter and hatch seals leaking right above the back of your neck.
A heater!Cheiftain NEVER had a heater,the only thing we had was the Boiling vessel in the turret so we could have hot drinks while we froze our bollocks off!
@@stevenbreach2561 Then i guess chieftain ran around a lot like i did trying to keep warm.
How did the automatic lead system work?
@chrisblack6258 tried it a couple of times, if I remember correctly it jumped the lead ahead by 3 or 5 mils. I never had much use for it. For me personally it was easier to track the target manually.
When I was in the Army I saw them drive down the road from time to time Ft. Knox & Ft. Lewis. Never been in one.
Crews called them A2 or Stubby I have a friend who lead a platoon of A2s and later one of A3s. He was in the Fulda gap area with the A2s loved the APERS. Many of the problems were recoil damaging the electrical parts of the missile package. The few Shilealeigh fired in Iraq did well the range was too short and the minimum range was way too long.
I served on all versions of the M60 except the A2. I did do three years on Sheridans. Loved the vehicle, hated the gun.
In 1971 the US ordered me. The failure designation is yet pending. But, looking good so far.
I had this tank as a Hot Wheels.
Find some ncos that were stationed at fort Knox in the late seventies. They called it a starship.
I worked on one around about 1980. I always thought "starship" referred to the UFO looking turret?
I trained on the M60A2 at Ft. Knox in 1977, because the vehicle was scheduled to be issued to 2-5 Cav, 1st Cav Division. That idea was scrapped and the battalion held on to it's ratty old M601 tanks until the new M1 was fielded there in maybe 1979 for OT2 testing. I never heard the vehicle called Starship, just M60A2. I can verify that the M73 and M85 machine guns were crap on my M60A1 tanks. Also at the time I heard an anecdotal explanation of the turret design. I was told the Army looked at the tanks destroyed in the Korean war and found a lot of rounds hit on the sides of the turret, so they minimized the front exposure with the new turret. Turns out their stats were flawed because a lot of turrets were destroyed by US forces to prevent capture by the Chinese. Don't know it that story is true or not. The M60A2 cupola had a cool fast electric turret with a target designate system. The commander could point his machine gun at a target different from the turret orientation, hit an override switch and the main gun would align to that position.
Since most of the vehicles there run, and they will have to move due to the action/relocation, do you think it viable to record some footage of them running? I think it'd be really cool
Great review thank you.
Definitely neat, had no idea tanks like this existed.
The battalion l was in had 4( late 70s early 80s) they were parked in the combat engineers motor pool and they came out maybe once or twice when l was stationed there for 2 years l presumed for gunnery otherwise they were never used. The main was the M60A1s than later were the M60A3s.
Famn shame I didn't see this 7 years ago. Got to see am M60-2 during BCT at Ft Knox Ky. Feb 76 ti Apl 76. Never seen at Permanent Party, 4th ID.
I never met a tanker, who served on the M60A2 OR the Sheridan, who had any use for the weapons system(s) or the ammo selection....Except for some Vietnam Veterans who absolutely LOVED the 152mm "Anti-Jungle/Anti-Personnel Round"....
The MBT-70, the Sheridan, the Starship, all used 152mm projectiles. How do these projectiles compare in mass to 140mm rounds which maybe used in future M1 or Leopard 2 designs (other than by 12mm in diameter)? Did they use 2 part ammo thus making them more manageable? Or is it that the 152mm ammo used a smaller charge compared to contemporary rounds which meant that they were easier to handle.
I find the idea of commander having to share his cupola with an HMG gross. Even with good ventilation system that machinegun is just too close to commander's head.
It was not built by General dynamics. It was Chystler Defense at that time
raytheon has done upgrades for these tanks,reactive armor,increase of 200 Hp to 950 from 750,stabilized 120 MM cannon,,, wt of 60 tons vs the abrams 65 tons, if we get into a shootin war,and need to get max loads hardware and rounds downrange 6k miles,would the M1 of ww 2 apply?,,as in 20 tons extra of supplies along with each freighter?
Yay, the Starship!
At last a new documentary if somewhat a bit shortish but always interesting! But I prefer more info like your previous issues! Yes it was the starship so disliked by its crew because of its absurd complexity and it was a nightmare to maintain! To make matters worse it also suffered from defective ammo that had to be handled with care and had a very bad scavenger sistem, at least with the first series, so every time it was shooting the crew almost had to bail out so noxious it was inside the turret! The turret itself was ballistically a disaster with an absurd commanders turret that looked ready to be shot off! But who was the genius that designed that turret? Couldn't it be easier to adapt the normal turret for that lousy cannon?
I was a gunner on one, from January 1976. The role was not to be in the front line,but back from the edge of the battle. If anything broke through, the long range of the missile was put to use. The HEAT,HE and cannister rounds were only for use if we came upon an enemy vehicle The small front of the turret, would make it hard to see, in a defilade position. We never had serious problems with the CBSS scavenging system.And,we never thought of it as a "Starship",that had to be a later appellation.
Thanks for the much needed info! But why such negative reports from not only specialized magazines but also from tanks experts? Mind you that I'm not an expert but simply a enthusiastic reader on tank warfare!
i am so lucky i was in an A3 from the things i hear for that A2....and i was dumb enough that i asked "if we have A1 and A3,what happened to the A2 model" while i was in training......the look of the seargeant was so....disgusted.....at least now i know why
Blargal D'Alien I too sever on the M60A2 in Ansbach Germany with the 1st armor Div. I too never heard of the word Starship for the M60A2. And we never had a problem with the M60A2 as Paolo Viti said. Maybe state side M60A2 did? Yes we were in the rear If the warsaw pack broke thought us, then the rest of Europe was open to them. Or only job was to hold them off for 3 days until help came from the states. I was on the M60A1, M60A2, M60A3, and the M1 with the 1st and 3rd armor Div. Germany
Dennis Hixson Always nice to hear from someone who operated the equipment in question. Thanks for your comments and thanks for serving!
I was with Charlie compamy , 1st tracked vehicle Bn out of camp Schwab Okinawa . "Driver" TC Lt Shehan. Everything worked well until there devloped Transmission problems. It would slip not allowing ti to drive out of a shallow ditch . The best weapon we had is the Sabot ant the tatical spotlight that could light up the SUN. In my opinion , we fixed most of the problems . The M85 was good but ammo dependant . . I transfered to LAI Camp Lejeune and was with the LAV's through Deasert Storm but saw plenty od M60A2's performing wonderfully Would have perfered a gas operated 50 ,, M2 or even just a very good lot of ammo . ,,,, I would still take 10 M60A2's over a single Abrams . The 05 kicked ass and the 55 of the abrams was just eisier to clean.
Awesome video as usual. What's the German tank behind you?
P.S. what is it with the audio that completely mutes you when you don't speak, the disappearance?
It's just low ambient sounds but it's really noticeable and annoying when it disappear!
Did you say 13 miles???
Yep.
@@TheChieftainsHatch wow!
lol i got to load on a m60a2 at fort hood in 1979 or 1980 , i can not remember the date ,as most units at fort hood had crews of only had 3 people and it was normal for people to load on other crew tanks
Was at ft hood 77 to 1980 1/67 a co 1st platoon m60 a2s
Nicholas I love your videos , BUT FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY PLEASE DITCH THEY HORRIBLE REPETITIVE "MUSIC" THAT ALL BUT DROWNS YOU OUT! :(
That's to keep the WOT fans attention span
Chieftain hello! Do the Centurion if u can!
A tank as iconic not being in wot as it is here is a real shame . It dont need missles just some heat and HE .
M60a1 down the road a little ways from me.
Starship! Here's one you don't see that often.
that's an OF-40 beside the Starship, right?
Leopard 1A5
bielochur Wrong. It's either a Leopard 1A3 or Leopard 1A4. The 1A5 had a cast turret like the earlier models.
I'm sorry that I have made so much hassle with my comments but my statements are what I read from various sources and books written by people who seems to know their stuff! As stated before I'm not a tanker but just an enthusiastic reader on anything that is a tank! But the point remains that USA and Russia both utilized a somewhat similar concept and both were after some years quickly kicked out of service! So apparently some problems did exist! Could anybody enlight me on this issue?
+Paolo Viti When I talked to former M551 users when I was in ('79 - '83) many said that the missle guidance system often failed, that it could not take the stresses when a conventioal round was fired. One SSG told me he launched a Shillelagh into (the former) East Germany from Wildflecken after they fired conventional ammo.
looks like a t49/sheridan on steroids. i think this would be good in the game if it was balanced as a tier 9/tier 10 light tank (if they ever add them) extending out from the t49 line. personally i think it's not fair to call these "mediums" and in fact i've been having the best luck in my m46 by playing it as an "assault light" by focusing on spotting, flanking, poking ridges, taking out soft targets, as i believe it suits the tank better given the stats and the fact that other tanks can basically "tank" better anyways. seems like this playstyle could be extended further. idk just my idea.
The military keeps trying to get rid of the Browning M2, just like the A-10, and each time has been an epic failure. Whether it's for legacy, money, or politics, when you try to fix something that isn't broken, it will cost you and others.
Does the Russian T-80 fire missiles also?
I think all their tanks have the ability to fire missiles if they're the up to date derivative :3
Good video, but a bit short and to clean/documentary like/technical... I preferre how it was before, more personal and funny, with you climbing around the tank, etc...
This isn't a "full" Chieftain's Hatch episode. It's part of his "Snapshot" series as the Littlefield collection being sold off soon, the Chief is trying to get to as many of them as possible in a short amount of time with these bite sized episodes.
The only problem I can remember was the M85 TC 50 cal MG, Blargal D'Alien should remember this lol... The 50 cal was Belt Feed upside down! And the M214 turret MG was no good, it would fire 2 or 3 rounds and stop! Later we got the M240 MG, from Israel, boy did that MG rock and roll!
Gunner C-23. Picked up my A2 in Jan 76, used it until I DFEROSed in 78.OUr M85 never jammed.. Th coax was the m 219, mine never jammed. I shot 13 missiles, one popped out of the tube and crashed in front of the tank. Another went wobbly up and d own, then crashed. Our tank had the bore evacuator, but it was inoperative. ALL ISSUED A2s HAD CBSS for the combustible cartridge case ammo
If they brand it as a tier 10 tank destroyer, I can see it fitting in WoT
This would be sweet in WoT
The M85 was a bad execution of a good idea. The idea was to make a .50 cal that eliminated the task of headspace and timing, making it more akin to the rapid change barrel system of the M60 MG, but the engineers just could not seem to get it right.
As for the M60A2 being a "failure", again it was not the fault of the vehicle as it was in fact a logical design, but like many ideas propagated in the 1970s such as "ammunition standardization" that dropped the .45ACP in favor of the 9mm parabellum, it was politics, not engineering, that killed the M60A2.
The "NATO standardization" that occurred in the 1970s was, in part, killed by U.S. politics in that one of the NATO standards was supposed to be everyone using the same ammo for rifles and light MGs, but America being the "innovators", blew up that plan, as the Brits used the FN and the L7, LMG, and the Germans the G3 and MG1 (both 7.62mm) the U.S. retained the M16 and brought in the M249, both in 5.56mm.
Agreed,if it wasn't for NATO rules,the Cheiftain might have had a decent engine,instead of the bag of bolts due to trying to get a multi fuel capability,(which everybody else ignored)
Maybe its because the turret looks like a UFO?
Now that missile technology has advanced, I wonder if large cannons are facing another challenge. Many new armoured vehicles use missiles paired with a 30/40mm gun.
Tanks can fire missiles from their main gun so I don't think they're facing a challenge against lights afvs.
Emanicas
I mean large cannons are becoming redundant. Seems better to use a an autocannon and a missile launcher combination than one big cannon.
soundslave They do excel at different things but vehicles and tanks with larger cannons can also have autocannons and extra machine guns.
MBTs have very good passive defence systems and armour; defence systems that detonate missiles and rockets and much better protection vs large guns and protection vs law weapons and the ability to carry that protection and still be very mobile.
Bigger main guns also pack a much bigger punch versus armoured and fortified units and positions because of their much larger projectiles.
I don't think tanks have much to worry about when it comes to being over taken by lighter afv xD
Long comment :> ^^
Emanicas
I was talking about just replacing the cannon, but keeping the armour. Like an abrams but with the missiles and autocannons. Then it's got the armour of a tank but the guns of the IFV.
A shame this won't make it into the game; It'd be fun derping people with that 152mm gun.
this thing could launch ATGMs too
Nuclear rounds were developed for ISU-152. RIP T92/ConGC/otherclickers.
CKshouta the 240MM M1 of the T92 could also fire a nuclear round, since the 240MM gun at the time was a heavy howitzer and fired a round about twice to three times as heavy as the ISU could, also countrary to the ingame T92, the 240MM M1 had a range of 23KM.
check out the t49 light, it also has a massive derp gun if my memory serves me right of a similar size. it's a tier 8 american light
"Coughs" war thunder
So why did it fail? Sounds more like the anti-tank missile was the problem.
Well when the tank is built around the gun, and the gun system a failure, your not setting yourself up for succsess.
The M60 wasn't a Patton tank.
The tank hull was a good platform, I have no knocks about the "60". The main complaint was the whole turret, it and everything inside it was crap!
I crewed the A2s, you don't know what you are talking about kid!
Whacky.
Nice to see the failures too
2K18
God you sound bunged up in this video.
Why have a tank review if everything is negative and was a failure. Why not review the MBT M60A1 ? This was a waist of film. The M60 was a legendary and Historic tank. Why Chueftain?