Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Good day to all of you my friends and my enemies (just kidding - love you all <3 lol). I have a very simple question for you - do you think that upgrading M60 MBT is a rational decision? Please elaborate on this topic. Now from my side I will elaborate on why I'm asking about it - > We have a lot of stuff in stock, and sometimes recycling costs a lot. So what we do sometimes is simply let those things rest in those feilds. But then some time ago I've noticed that there are different opinions about those tanks - some people, some organizations, some constructors are saying that there might be some chance for a second life for those things. So I've viewed few videos, rad few things, and went through some photos and I saw things like this:

then I saw those Leonardo Upgrades:

8wFRcbS.jpg

IZ5hWHS.jpg

tx5zsf2.jpg

So what do you guys think about it? Do you think it got some potential or doing something like that (in large numbers) would be a massive waste of money? 

Another sub question: You think if some of those programs would be accepted it would be a product for American Military or it should be sold somewhere in Asia

Thank you for your participation.

nf9r3dn.jpg

I know Israel was making its "Sabras" for some time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no chance of the US operating an updated M60, full stop.  Our stocks of the tank were eliminated either through scrapping or selling them off as surplus.  There's also more than enough M1A1s, or earlier run M1A2s to go around.

The various fancy M60 options exist entirely for other users.  It isn't a "waste" in the sense most tank users aren't going toe to toe with ultra modern MBTs, they're shooting it out with insurgents, or they're worried about neighbors with M48s/T-55s/whatever, so a lower capability tank with modest upgrades makes sense in this context.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is interesting. I have no idea how many M60s are being operated, or by whom. Each operator would have to check their threat matrix to see if they need the upgrades...or if they should buy something new.

The new 120mm in the M60? I wonder what that does to round count. 

If I had an M60, sure, I'd be interested. But that's me. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

There is no chance of the US operating an updated M60, full stop.  Our stocks of the tank were eliminated either through scrapping or selling them off as surplus.  There's also more than enough M1A1s, or earlier run M1A2s to go around.

The various fancy M60 options exist entirely for other users.  It isn't a "waste" in the sense most tank users aren't going toe to toe with ultra modern MBTs, they're shooting it out with insurgents, or they're worried about neighbors with M48s/T-55s/whatever, so a lower capability tank with modest upgrades makes sense in this context.  

Thank you man. Is there an option to make an automatic reload for M1 tanks? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, Oleksandr said:

Thank you man. Is there an option to make an automatic reload for M1 tanks? 

Why in God's name would you ever want that? Like the premise of the thread is already pretty questionable (why would the US ever bring out m60s when it has the Abrams, its not like the US is going to be taking heavy tank losses any time in the near future), but this is just getting even more wew lad. Frankly, the only reason to introduce an autoloader to the M1 would be to lure the Russians into a false sense of security: "see Marshal Putin, they are just as incompetent as us, attack Kiev now!"

Edited by sid_burn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Oleksandr said:

Thank you man. Is there an option to make an automatic reload for M1 tanks? 

There have been a lot of attempts and proposals to stick an autoloader in M1, actually.

The thing is that the US regards (and rightly, IMO) the advantages of an autoloader as being outweighed by the problems, as well as the benefits of a fourth crew member. With a human loader, you get an extra pair of eyes, an extra pair of hands for maintenance, your loader can actually think for himself, and he performs faster in the short term. Just having that extra pair of eyes is a serious advantage in the see-first shoot-first environment of tank combat.

Ultimately, the fact that the US hasn't elected to buy into any of the proposals for an autoloader for M1 should be enough of an indication of its (lack of) interest in the idea.

Edited by Saint_Fuller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Saint_Fuller said:

There have been a lot of attempts and proposals to stick an autoloader in M1, actually.

The thing is that the US regards (and rightly, IMO) the advantages of an autoloader as being outweighed by the problems, as well as the benefits of a fourth crew member. With a human loader, you get an extra pair of eyes, an extra pair of hands for maintenance, your loader can actually think for himself, and he performs faster in the short term. Just having that extra pair of eyes is a serious advantage in the see-first shoot-first environment of tank combat.

Ultimately, the fact that the US hasn't elected to buy into any of the proposals for an autoloader for M1 should be enough of an indication of its (lack of) interest in the idea.

How about making a turret without humans at all when the crew is not risking their lives and sitting in a well protected capsule and all the functions with loading, reloading and stuff like that are going on automatically. Something like what we do with smaller vehicles now - when the turrret itself has no people inside? 

Link in Ukraine we got that prototype called T - Rex 

QUPSoqb.jpg

In russia they got that armata thing. 

And there is another thing that Israel system (dont remember its name) when you wearing a helmet when you can see through armor - kinda same tech what being used in F-35 program when the pilot could look through his plane.

The reason why im asking is that AT systems went so far that hit in a turret would lead to all crew members dead or nearly dead. So you think the Future of Abrams tanks will be in still habbitable turret? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Oleksandr said:

How about making a turret without humans at all when the crew is not risking their lives and sitting in a well protected capsule and all the functions with loading,

The turret. Is more. P r o t e c t e d. On an Abrams. Or Leopard 2. Than. The. Hull. Is.

Your argument is invalid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Oleksandr said:

How about making a turret without humans at all when the crew is not risking their lives and sitting in a well protected capsule and all the functions with loading, reloading and stuff like that are going on automatically. Something like what we do with smaller vehicles now - when the turrret itself has no people inside? 

Link in Ukraine we got that prototype called T - Rex 

QUPSoqb.jpg

In russia they got that armata thing. 

And there is another thing that Israel system (dont remember its name) when you wearing a helmet when you can see through armor - kinda same tech what being used in F-35 program when the pilot could look through his plane.

The reason why im asking is that AT systems went so far that hit in a turret would lead to all crew members dead or nearly dead. So you think the Future of Abrams tanks will be in still habbitable turret? 

"T-Rex" is just a 3d model as far as I know, hardly a prototype by any stretch of the imagination. More of a glorified napkin drawing than anything TBH.

 

Anyway. The US briefly looked into unmanned turrets in the 90s with M1 TTB, decided the reduction in situational awareness that came from having to use only cameras and maintenance issues with the unmanned turret weren't worth the advantages (losing like ten tons of weight by stripping the turret of armor, and putting the crew in a position where they were less likely to be hit in the hull), and stayed the course with manned turrets.

FCS's Mounted Combat System (as close to Block III as we actually got) and M8 AGS both had manned turrets if memory serves, and I suppose that it's a fairly safe bet to assume that any eventual Block III tank would have had that too, since I'm pretty sure the Armor School never really changed its opinion on the matter of the necessity of the TC to be able to actually look around his vehicle.

So, considering all that as well as the poor experience the US has had with an actual robotic turret (Stryker MGS), I'm fairly sure they're going to stick with manned turrets for their next tank too. Whenever that happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By all accounts that have appeared online, the M60T outperformed early build LEO2s in Syria. One even survived a Kornet hit in Iraq, though it was also particularly lucky in the angle of impact.

That being said, the M60T was a very expensive project whose main purpose was to transfer technology to build a domestic tank; therefore, it was something more than an 'upgrade.'

Interestingly, the M60T project came about after the failed bid to build the Ukrainian Yatagan, which didn't work out since the Russians refused to transfer their APS technology. Considering this was Yeltsin's cash-strapped Russia, it speaks volumes about the strategic value they placed on APS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Decided in October, Taiwan is going to refurbish 450 M60 tanks and re-gun them with 120mm because it was unable to purchase surplus Abrams tanks from the US.

Upgraded M60 is like Ukrainian T-64. Under normal conditions its unwarranted but sometimes your tactical requirement is for fielding the MOST tanks rather than the BEST tanks. I recall reading that for the price of one new BM Bulat Ukraine is able to refurbish six(?) T64s. Of course I'm talking about countries without extra money to throw away and lots of old tanks sitting in depot. 

Edited by MikeyD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like they have an SOP where the loader covers the rear of the vehicle while a column is moving through close terrain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Oleksandr said:

Thank you man. Is there an option to make an automatic reload for M1 tanks? 

I'll also briefly address unmanned turrets.

So my time on tanks is rapidly becoming a distant past for me, so your mileage may vary, however:

1. The advantage to the autoloader is size, not performance.  Having the fourth crewman was very useful for a variety of reasons, and it was a superior way to service the gun (the ROF is overrated though, in practice a tank will never fire anywhere near "rapidly" simply because it has to acquire targets, and the delay in shooting is usually "finding target" vs prepping the gun tasks).  He also was very handy if there was a fault (we had a gunnery were the breach kept getting stuck not fully closed, on a tank with an autoloader, we'd have been a firepower kill not mission capable, or only capable if the gunner/commander manual actuated the breach, with the loader, he just hooked up a little tool designed for such occasions, and manually operated the breach with no loss of ROF or capability).  The only time I see an autoloader making sense over the current human loader is if we start talking about much larger gun rounds (like 140 MM) simply because it'll be beyond the ability of a normal human to load.

2. I'm opposed to the unmanned turret for the same reason.  The undeniable advantage is having a smaller turret, although you'll still need some volume to allow the gun to depress to a reasonable degree), but I really don't like the idea of the turret effectively sealed and inaccessible.  There's a lot of systems on a turret that without either a human to fix them, or a fairly direct mechanical backup renders the tank totally inoperable.  A loss of the gunner's primary optics, the autoloader, turret drive, or even just a jam in the coaxial weapon all mean the tank is either done, cannot perform combat missions, or requires pulling the tank back to dismount and work on it.  

It's not just armor or firepower, it's being able to manage damage, or degraded system and continue the fight.  Automation is good as a starting point, but there's a reason why we trained using the various mechanical backups, and why the true judge of a crew wasn't at fully mission capable, but instead how it operated when things broke.
I've seen enough go weird on otherwise fully functional tanks to really feel foolish making a lot of those systems inaccessible in normal operations, or eliminating redundant mechanical systems.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Saint_Fuller said:

"T-Rex" is just a 3d model as far as I know, hardly a prototype by any stretch of the imagination. More of a glorified napkin drawing than anything TBH.

 

Anyway. The US briefly looked into unmanned turrets in the 90s with M1 TTB, decided the reduction in situational awareness that came from having to use only cameras and maintenance issues with the unmanned turret weren't worth the advantages (losing like ten tons of weight by stripping the turret of armor, and putting the crew in a position where they were less likely to be hit in the hull), and stayed the course with manned turrets.

FCS's Mounted Combat System (as close to Block III as we actually got) and M8 AGS both had manned turrets if memory serves, and I suppose that it's a fairly safe bet to assume that any eventual Block III tank would have had that too, since I'm pretty sure the Armor School never really changed its opinion on the matter of the necessity of the TC to be able to actually look around his vehicle.

So, considering all that as well as the poor experience the US has had with an actual robotic turret (Stryker MGS), I'm fairly sure they're going to stick with manned turrets for their next tank too. Whenever that happens.

nope it was a scratch in 2016 in 2017 they built a prototype and its on its long road on different kinds of tests. Actually I will make a post about it when they will reveal more materials. For Ukraine its a matter of money at this point. So yea we not expecting them earlier than 2020. But it sort of follows the trend. Manned turrets... Hm well it is what it is then. Thank you for your input by the way i didnt knew about FCS prior to this post. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just re read The March Up - Taking Baghdad with the US Marines.  2 Items jump out.

In one instance an M1 had old swollen 120 mm rounds.  It locked up in the breach.  The loader hopped out and cleared it through the barrel.

second item, the FAC that rode with the armor unit took the position of the loader in the tank he was assigned to (seems they figured he could at least be able to load a round)

those sound like 2 decent reasons for keeping the loader around not to mention the maintenance work that the tank overall require- oh yeah someone already mentioned that... that alone seems to be a really really good reason for keeping that extra set of hands around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Oleksandr said:

nope it was a scratch in 2016 in 2017 they built a prototype and its on its long road on different kinds of tests. [...] For Ukraine its a matter of money at this point.

Oleksandr, can you provide proof pics? T-Rex is "designed" on top of T-64 chassis. It simply has no space to put three crew members in line in transverse configuration.

As a background, UKR MoD cancelled the tests of the last chef d'oevre of the same origin - a military-donated T-64 dozer rebuilt into IFV. The only means available to the crew to observe the battlefield and target the weapons were cameras - no old school optical devices. And the cameras installed were taken from COTS home intercoms. Their plastic circuit boards and fasteners didn't survive the vehicle moving, they were breaking up under vibration. That might seem as an unfortunate design choice to be corrected later on should we forget that the vehicle was created by "Azovets" Engineering Group of 23 or 24 (literally!) hobbyists building "tanks" part-time by crowdfunding from a populace of an average annual salary of less than 3K USD.

Edited by IMHO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

T-Rex is an Azov flight of fantasy.....It would fit in beautifully alongside this (better than an Abbot anyway, Abbots were real):

rewttq2.jpg

Lovely bunch, those Azov types, just delightful:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion

Speaking of Azov Battalion creations, I'm a fan of the "Azovets" personally.

Take T-64, remove turret, bolt ~15 tons of applique and a superstructure on, install two turrets with 23mm aviation cannons and ATGM launchers. What more could you ask for??? ;)

23APipn.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Saint_Fuller said:

What more could you ask for??? ;)

 

Vision ports.  :mellow:

1 hour ago, IanL said:

An updated copy of PhotoShop :D

Staggeringly that POS is real, it's the thing @IMHO was referring to in his post.....This is the closest any putative T-Rex component comes to actually existing in materiel reality though. 

I don't fancy its chances against a BMP-T much, because the BMP-T will actually be able to see it.  :lol:

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which speaks to the point others and myself have made repeatedly: If you're going to waste that much tonnage on a hunk of metal, just go all the way and slap a real FCS and turret on it and call it a MBT and give it a proportional mission to its cost. She who attempts everything accomplishes nothing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Just some actual means of seeing outside (that still works when you drive it) would really help though.  ;)

Bah. Such luxuries are unnecessary Western decadence.

The supermen of Azov can obviously see through solid steel. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×