M1 vs M60

[zmoney]

Is there a difference in the gun that these tanks use or did the M1 in this timeframe use the same 105mm that the M60 did? Is there a difference in the firing mechanism? Such as are the sights better on the M1?

 

Is the armor on the M1 far superior?

 

Do the Leo2’s in this timeframe already have the 120mm installed?

[MikeyD]

Same 105mm gun. M1 and M60A3 share the then-latest depleted uranium APFSDS round, the other tanks use earlier rounds. One notable thing, no smoke shells for Abrams. That round needs to be stowed vertically due to the nature of its contents but there's no vertical round stowage in Abrams. So no smoke shells.

[Able Archer]

Leopard 2 always had a 120 mm gun.

Leo 1 had 105 mm.

 

[The_MonkeyKing]

Actually would really interesting to see a comprehensive comparison between the practical capability comparison between the two.

Very similar:
- Accuracy (Fire control system, optics)
- Lethality (ammo, gun)

Improvements with the M1
- armor protection (significantly more) https://i.imgur.com/x6C6pXf.png
- mobility (significantly more) 72kph vs 48kph
- crew protection (compartmentalized ammo, etc.)

https://youtu.be/WDs5oQW1vNA Abrams Switchology (this is M1A1 but to my understanding A1 mostly effected mechanical stuff as armor and gun)
https://youtu.be/PW0uRHKzXhM M60A3 TTS Switchology

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php/M60A3_(TTS)
https://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php?title=M1

Edited February 25, 2021 by The_MonkeyKing

[zmoney]

3 hours ago, Able Archer said:

Leopard 2 always had a 120 mm gun.

Leo 1 had 105 mm.

 

I was reading up on this and was pretty sure it was the 120mm but wasn’t sure. How forward thinking.

[Ryujin]

Some other things.

M60's commander's cupola while being a weak spot does have some advantages. 

-Has higher magnification, can reload the .50 from inside. M1 is lower magnification (good for most shooting, not good for spotting) 

-Has a night vision sight and big forward unity sight, M1 commander doesn't have his own night vision sight. 

-M1 has better vision blocks, where as the ones in the M60 are tiny. 

While both tanks don't have great visibility by modern standards, from SB experience it generally feels like you get a bit better visibility from inside with the M60 as the commander. In the M1 you're pretty blind turned in. In CM you'd probably want the commander opened up all the time, unlike the later M1A2s. 

Fire control wise, the M1 has as digital fire control where as the M60A3 TTS is built on top of old tech. M1 is going to be better at lead, firing on the move, stuff like that. If you look at the M60A3 switchology, you can see there's more manual steps. 

M1's gunners sight is one of the highest things on the tank (on the roof, no commanders cupola), so you can peek from turret down with it without exposing much. Never really tested how well this works in CM.

Edited February 25, 2021 by Ryujin

[MikeyD]

According to the Internet (a trusted source) this is the difference between the M1A1 Abrams you'll find in CMSF2 and the M1 Abrams you'll find in Cold War.

[Ryujin]

there's 4 generations of armor so that chart isn't quite correct:

1. M1 
2. M1IP/M1A1- New turret 
3. M1A1(HA/HC/SA/FEP) -  DU armor
4. M1A2 - Even better DU armor

Edited February 25, 2021 by Ryujin

[IICptMillerII]

4 hours ago, Ryujin said:

there's 4 generations of armor so that chart isn't quite correct:

1. M1 
2. M1IP/M1A1- New turret 
3. M1A1(HA/HC/SA/FEP) -  DU armor
4. M1A2 - Even better DU armor

Not to nitpick, and I am sure you personally know, but the M1A1 was not just the M1IP with a 120mm. The A1 came with even better armor and a new fire control for the 120mm gun as well. And it was the M1A1HA that added the DU armor. Just so everyone else is aware 

[nik mond]

The CAT competition was an interesting indicator of the best tanks and crews. Sort of a biennial tank Olympics in Grafenwohr back in the day. Surprisingly the M60's held their own even with dated ranging equipment. The first year the M1 came in, it won of course.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Army_Trophy

[Ryujin]

1 hour ago, IICptMillerII said:

Not to nitpick, and I am sure you personally know, but the M1A1 was not just the M1IP with a 120mm. The A1 came with even better armor and a new fire control for the 120mm gun as well. And it was the M1A1HA that added the DU armor. Just so everyone else is aware 

Nope didn't know, thought the M1IP armor carried over to the base M1A1, with the A1 being the new gun and fcs. Thanks for the correction, do you know what changed? 

[c3k]

My understanding is that the M60 TTS was a much better sight than the first generation M1s, when it came to thermal imaging. I can't speak to reliability.

[Able Archer]

19 hours ago, zmoney said:

I was reading up on this and was pretty sure it was the 120mm but wasn’t sure. How forward thinking.

True. Makes you wonder why the M1 got an 105 mm while Germany chose 120 mm for Leo 2 developed slightly earlier. And Soviet tanks already had 125 mm guns.

perhaps "cost" is the obvious answer. At least they prepared M1 for the 120 mm gun.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

The military budget was a joke under Carter.

It's where they appropriated money for everything else.

[MikeyD]

The 'magic bullet' was supposed to be APFSDS for 105mm gun and they had no idea about Soviet composite armor. The US eventually conducted tests comparing the APFSDS-firing 105mm, Rheinmetall 120mm smooth bore and a British rifled 120mm (experimental) gun. It was after those tests that they went with a US version of the Rheinmetall gun, though the German sabot round was underperforming and the gun's accuracy didn't quite match the 105.

[IICptMillerII]

16 hours ago, Ryujin said:

Nope didn't know, thought the M1IP armor carried over to the base M1A1, with the A1 being the new gun and fcs. Thanks for the correction, do you know what changed? 

IIRC the turret armor was slightly beefed up, but not by a ton. The blowout panels for the ammo were also tweaked as was the ammo stowage, which theoretically would have improved crew survivability even more. 

But you are definitely right that the DU armor that came with the HA was a pretty decent leap forward in (already pretty exceptional) armor protection. 

4 hours ago, Able Archer said:

True. Makes you wonder why the M1 got an 105 mm while Germany chose 120 mm for Leo 2 developed slightly earlier. And Soviet tanks already had 125 mm guns.

perhaps "cost" is the obvious answer. At least they prepared M1 for the 120 mm gun.

Its also important to remember that the size of the gun doesn't matter nearly as much as the ammo the gun is firing. There are 105mm sabot rounds that outperform 120mm rounds. 

[Amedeo]

US intelligence hadn't always a cavalier attitude about the performance of the frontal protection of the new (i.e. post T-62) generation of Soviet tanks.

Here are a couple excerpts I hope you'll find interesting.

Snippets from a declassified 1980 document: "US Intelligence and Soviet armor" (emphasis mine)
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000624298.pdf

In brief, the US is now behind, tank for tank, and even when our developmental XM833 depleted-uranium round for the 105mm cannon becomes available, the XM1 is likely to be no more than an even match for the T-80.

As may be seen, while all weapons have provided high assurance of kill against the T-62, the M735 - planned to be the most numerous round aboard US tanks - is impotent against the T-72.

Snippets from a declassified 1987 document: "Near East and Sout Asia Reiview" (emphasis mine)
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP05S02029R000300990003-3.pdf

The Pakistanis like the M1A1 because of its 120mm gun. US experts believe this gun could defeat T-72M1s in frontal engagements only if supplied with US-made M829 depleted uranium rounds, but the United States has rejected a Pakistani request for another depleted uranium round - the M833.

The United States has sold Pakistan 5,000 M735 rounds [...] these [...] are incapable of penetrating a T-72's frontal armor. Islamabad has asked the United States to sell it the more powerful M833 depleted uranium round - which probably cannot defeat the T-72M1's frontal armor either - but this request was recently turned down.

[Thewood1]

5 hours ago, MikeyD said:

The 'magic bullet' was supposed to be APFSDS for 105mm gun and they had no idea about Soviet composite armor. The US eventually conducted tests comparing the APFSDS-firing 105mm, Rheinmetall 120mm smooth bore and a British rifled 120mm (experimental) gun. It was after those tests that they went with a US version of the Rheinmetall gun, though the German sabot round was underperforming and the gun's accuracy didn't quite match the 105.

According to Squadron/Signal's M1 book, In final development of the XM1, 105mm L7, UK 120mm, and German 120mm were tested in a benchmark.  The German gun was preferred and actually selected, but issues using the caseless ammo and some breech design issues had to be worked out.  M1 production was imminent enough that the 105mm was selected, but trunnion design was set to take the German 120mm.

So it wasn't cost that was the result of the 105mm selection, it was the 120mm cannon not being ready for US operations.  It took Rheinmetall anther year to work out the issues for use in the M1.  I'm sure that having a lot of 105mm ammo in war stocks also had an influence.  The short is that the M1 was originally designed to take the 105mm.  shortcomings in the Rheinmetall gun lad to the upgrade path being chosen.

[Sgt Joch]

In terms of effectiveness in game, there is not that much practical difference between M60A1 RISE, M60A3, M1. All can quickly kill Soviet tanks if used properly and will quickly be killed by any Soviet tank if you make a mistake.

[Rice]

1 hour ago, Sgt Joch said:

In terms of effectiveness in game, there is not that much practical difference between M60A1 RISE, M60A3, M1. All can quickly kill Soviet tanks if used properly and will quickly be killed by any Soviet tank if you make a mistake.

Including the M1?

[Thewood1]

The gun is basically the same.  But the fire control in the M60A1 and M60A3 is not as modern as the M1's.  The original M1 was built to fire more accurately on the move.  Even later M60A3s were still just stabilized and not really built for fire on the move.  The M1 also has the first gen thermal.  As you can see, there is a relatively significant increase in armor.

[markus544]

So as far as CMCW is concerned more accuracy is achieved when the M-48 or M-60 is halted.

Edited February 27, 2021 by markus544

[Thewood1]

My understanding is that even in M1's later series, SOP was to fire on the halt as a preferred method.  But the accuracy of the M1 firing on the move is still very close to moving on relatively smooth ground.

On the Later M60A3s, the stabilization system kept the gun pointed at the target, but it still had lash and vibration that made firing on the move not as accurate at medium to long ranges.

[markus544]

Having said that was NATO forces primarily in a defensive mode against the USSR..When the USSR was clearly the evader.  NATO forces going over to counter attack might have some degree of gunnery issues.

 

[Rice]

24 minutes ago, Thewood1 said:

But the fire control in the M60A1 and M60A3 is not as modern as the M1's.  The original M1 was built to fire more accurately on the move.  Even later M60A3s were still just stabilized and not really built for fire on the move.

It's interesting how much functionality they were able to stuff into the M60A3 TTS's FCS. Unfortunately it has no concept of it's own movement. What's more quirky about it is that it tracks the last 1.5 seconds of movements (turret rotation) So once you lase a target you have to dump the lead manually every time (unless you want to wait 1.5 seconds before lasing).