Combat Mission Units: M60

[@masonm9316]

The M60 has one massive advantage that is hardly talked about. It’s exceptionally good at turret down to hill down back to turret down engagements. The commanders coupla is tall enough it can easily see over a ridge and keep the tank hidden. Identify, pull forward engagement and back up. I’ve done some amateur testing and it does seem that the tank commander can see even when the target command says the tank shouldn’t. I think this is because the target command draws a line from the middle of the unit and defines that as the LOS for the player but not necessarily the LOS for the crew in the tank. However, I have gotten the target is partially seen indication where only the commander could engage with the .50

[@usuallyhapless9481]

Yeah, I forgot to cover that. CM sort of covers things like gun depression, but also sort of not. I'd need to test the crap out of it.

[@masonm9316]

@@usuallyhapless9481 I am not real good at testing things like that, all I did was create a berm that only the commanders coupla was exposed and set up a bunch of targets down range and the M60s could see them. But you have to be pretty accurate in your place meant of the tank otherwise the commander can’t see. Also I am pretty sure even if the commander is opened up, his model might be higher but the LOS is still the same. But I am not sure, this is super amateur testing on my part.

[@nonyabuziness5082]

@alwayshapless You forgot about that? Yeah that is one hell of a professional approach to a video documentary. You’re pathetic. Here you dropped this 🧠

[@mikeduplessis8069]

Basic M60A1 in the game timeframe is obsolete and should only be used as emergency attrition replacements hastily pulled out of storage. Its basically the tank the Israelis fought in in 1973. By that logic, you should be seeing MORE basic M60A1s the longer the war stretches, as they're fielded to make up war loses

[@seankong9733]

He is BACK and he’s better than ever! It’s so good to see you again Hapless!

[@Lonestar19d]

Wow. I was a National Guard M60 tanker back in 1992 for about a year (I never did a gunnery or a Field Ex) until we got M1s and M1IPs. I thought I knew a lot about the series; I was wrong. Great video.

[@mikeduplessis8069]

A note on the Shillelagh. The game actually fields the MGM-151B missile with a 3000m range.

[@usuallyhapless9481]

I stand corrected!

[@mikeduplessis8069]

@@usuallyhapless9481 The Beta had been using the A version but late in game development additional documentation was discovered so came the quick shift to B version.

[@dennisgraham3087]

My first experience ( somewhat) was back when I was in the Boys Scouts, one summer we were on our annual summer camp. Which apparently was next to the local Natl Guard training grounds. Long story short. Some of my unit members got to see a number of the tanks conducting night exercises. I apparently slept so soundly that I missed it.

[@nbr1rckr]

M60 more like MSexy I had a video like this in my mind's eye the moment I heard Cold War announced. Glad to see it finally.

[@vukashin88]

yeah boii she thicc

[@michaelsnyder3871]

You mentioned Hunnicutt, I would also take a look at the various books Zaloga has written about US and Soviet armor. Now much of what I am going to say comes from these resources and declassified documents from the Combined Arms Research Library. The first and foremost reason for the existence of the T-62 was the discovery that the 100mm D-10 gun in the T-54 and T-55 could not penetrate the M60A1 across its frontal arc except at point blank range with the ammo, mostly APHE available in 1961-62. The M60A1 glacis was 109mm at 65 degrees. Empirical data shows that this was equal (more or less) to a 330mm thick vertical plate of RHA while the lower glacis was around 280-290mm at its thickest. The gun shield was 250-260mm and the turret frontal arc was around 254mm. The turret did create some shot traps. The 100mm BR-412D APHE could penetrate a 185mm vertical plate at 1,000 meters. However, by 1968, the UBK5, UBK5M HEAT shells are rated at 380mm at all ranges, while the 100mm 3BM8 APDS shot could penetrate 200mm at 1,000 meters. Remember that the Soviets did not introduce tungsten-steel penetrators until late in the Cold War and Du penetrators only afterward. The sources imply that the 3BK17 HEAT and 3BM25 APDSFS rounds were not in wide service before the end of the Cold War. The 9K116 'Bastion' passive laser homing ATGM was available from 1984-85 and was rated at 550mm. The primary issue was fire control, where the simple Soviet stadiametric telescopes. Despite the gun stabilization, the tank still had to halt for the gunner to acquire the target and fire. With APDS, at 1,000 meters, first round hits on a stationary target was between .5 and .8 depending on crew training. With the lower velocity HEAT rounds, hits fell of to .3-.5 at 1,000 meters. One reason for adopting guided missiles was it allowed for a reasonably high hit percentage at ranges beyond the capability of Soviet tank fire control. In the mid-70s, T-55's began receiving laser rangefinders mounted on their gun tubes. While this gave an accurate range, without FC computers and linkages, it was still up to the gunner to estimate the point of aim. This may have increased the percentages by .2 or so. In the early 80's, the T-55s were given the Volna fire control system. This essential brought them up to the standard of NATO MBTs of the late '60s and early '70s. Hit percentage went up to .7-.9 for the APDS at 1,500 meters and about .5-.7 for HEAT. This was a stationary tank at a stationary target. The 9K116 increased this to .9 at 2,000 meters and .8 at 3,000 meters. There were two unquantifiable areas here. First, is the known issues with high tolerance manufacturing in the USSR. The 125mm D-81 was a powerful gun that was frequently let down by excessive dispersion due to projectile and powder quality, while the second was crew readiness. Even the crews in the SGFG rarely fired more than ten rounds a year and spent most of their training using sub-caliber devices shooting it at models. Their counterparts in USAREUR/Seventh Army fired over 100 live rounds a year against more realistic requirements and increasingly realistic electronic training devices. The norm for a Soviet tank crew, regardless of tank type was four engagements a minute, shooting at stationary targets from 500-1,000 meters from a halt. M60 crews throughout this period regularly engaged 6-8 targets a minute, first at halt with earlier M60s and then rolling with the M60A3 and M1 MBTs at targets from 500-2,500 meters. During Reforger 82, we went through temps over 100 degrees F and humidity over 80%. Summer would have been very uncomfortable for Soviet crews. Even before electronic fire controls, US M60 crews were expected to achieve .85 hits at 1,000 meters and .55 hits at 2,000 meters w/APDS at a stationary target. Heat was .7 and .45 respectively. This was before stabilization, which was installed in the early-70s and allowed this performance to be achieved at a slow roll. Given a crew engagement cycle of 6-8 targets per minute, an M60A1 crew could punch out 3-4 T-54/55 or T-62s at 1,000 meters w/o smoke and from a hull down position, a similar performance being achieved by Israeli crews in 1973. Of course, at that point a T-54/55 or T-62 was a point blank range or on your flank. BTW, I have seen too many M60A1/3 tanks firing from exposed positions in KZbin videos. Now the T-55 had the equivalent thickness of a vertical RHA plate of 250-300mm on the upper glacis, around 200mm on the lower glacis and from 205mm to 280mm depending on the point of attack. The "brow" armor adopted in the early 1980s added 330-435mm against KE and 400-450mm against HEAT on the armor and whether the attack was 90 degrees or not. In the late 1980s, ERA modified that to 420-480mm against KE and 700-900 against HEAT. Now the primary round for the 105mm M68 in the M60A1 was the M456 HEAT which travelled at 3,850 fps compared to 2,400 fps for the HEP round. The M456 HEAT penetrated a 430mm thick vertical plate of RHA. The US and W.German tankers preferred HEAT over APDS, which the Brits preferred. The US M392A2 APDS tungsten-steel shot penetrated 315mm at 2,000 meters. The M735 APDSFS tungsten-steel penetrator improved this to 400mm. The M774 adopted in 1979 improved this to 450mm, while the M833 pushed it up to 490mm. The M900 would have pushed it out yet again to 510mm. The M774 used a "staballoy" body, while the M833 used steel sheathed DU and the M900 used a lengthened long rod penetrator. Along with the APDSFS shot came electronic fire control and full stabilization with the M60A3. This improved hit percentages to .9 and .8 respectively while moving at 25kmh for KE and .85 and .65 for HEAT. Once the AVF shook its off of the post-Vietnam malaise, training and morale steadily improved, especially after Chapter 15 and the urinalysis program. Even in the early 70s, though, despite the turbulence. both personnel and social, tank crews would still have come up close to standard at the start of hostilities, since many of the problem were related to a garrison mentality. Now as far as night fighting, the initial model of the Xenon searchlight allowed the engagement of a tank-sized target at 1,200 meters. This can be compared to the limits that active IR sights placed on the T-55 and T-62. The gunner's searchlight next to the gun was good for 800 meters and while the TC's searchlight was good for 400 meters. With the "pink" filter and the image intensification sights, the engagement range on the M60 extended to 1,500-1,800 meters. The TTS introduced in the M60A3 TTS with its thermal sight eliminated the need for a S/L and could acquire tank targets out to 5,000 meters and engage at 3,000 meters, night or any other low visibility situations such as smoke, fog, rain and dust. When using the M60A3 TTS, the M1 and/or M2/M3 Bradley, the US player should bring smoke down on the Soviets and if they are attacking, force them to turn on the smoke generators as dictated by their doctrine. The Soviets can't see a thing but you can see them at 3,000 meters or more.

[@gareththompson2708]

New Hapless!! I'm in class right now so I'll watch the video in a couple hours. But my impression of the M60 in CMCW so far is that it feels a lot like the ultimate Sherman. The M60A1 feels like the pinnacle of what can be done with WW2 technology. The M60A3 meanwhile feels like a cross between the ultimate WW2 tank and a truly modern tank. A Sherman with hacks if you will.

[@tomssimshack398]

Something that I don't think was pointed out, maybe I didn't catch it if it was, is that the M-60A3TTS has a thermal imaging system which is better than what the M1 has due to the extra space in the turret that the M60 can dedicate to the refrigeration system for the thermal imaging sight. A cooler TIS leads to a higher resolution picture.

[@MegalonJonesSlattery]

That side by side comparison of the M60A1 and the M60A3 at 21:00 minutes is instructive and impressive.

[@raybrindos4514]

Two things for you. First, the M60 was never called Patton. Just M60. Second, we carried 5 to 10 rounds of hep (hesh). Former M60 tank commander.

[@usuallyhapless9481]

1. Yep, I know. Not officially, but it helps to highlight the lineage. 2. As it stands in CMCW, none of the M60s carry HEP. I don't know if that's just an oversight or it wasn't carried in Germany between 79 and 82. Something of a pity though, HEP is an interesting kind of round.

[@nonyabuziness5082]

&alwayshapless you should work for the mainstream media since facts and the truth don't matter to you one bit as long as you can use it. Here you dropped this 🧠

[@lt.qwerty6146]

I seriously love these videos. i can imagine they're a lot of work but dang it hits all the right notes, the historical info and game info pit together well. Just chef's kiss.

[@renatthestarbase]

Seems like the M60 starts out like upgraded Sherman still fighting panthers, as in one should use the M60 to get side shots and everything will be fine, but the M60 TTS becomes more of a hunter killer!

[@Thekilleroftanks]

not really. the m60 tts came about generally around the late 1970s and early 1980s. where tanks like the leopard 1a5 (the last of the leopard 1s) and leopard 2s were being made, in fact the leopard 2 was developed and introduced. in fact by the time the original order batch of leopard 2 was finished and being given to the german army, was 1992. now for each year they ordered generally around 100 to 200 tanks each. by 1984 some 1200 leopard 2s was delivered to the german army. this isnt including leopard 1a5s which everyone can agree on, is a far better tank than the m60a3. this also isnt including other nation mbts, like france, or britian, or the USSR. which ironically was much like the m60. very outdated tanks just being slowly patched together to get something better. though could be worse, could be a t90 which is so bad older t72s is considered more modern.

[@mymneisadj]

this confirms the in game conclusions i had drawn from playing the game.. if your familiar with the world war 2 games think of Shermans VS Panthers....good luck with that....the soviets in this game are not quite as hard to beat as the americans in black sea but they are a real problem to deal with.. .. to beat their armour you almost have to have attrited it with air support (good luck their manpads are deadly) and tow missile vechiles (until they blow up from a munition fired in their general direction) hopefully before your air support is shot out the sky and your TOW lauchers are fiery memories.. hopefully they have taken enough enemy tanks out that the americans have around a 2 to 1 advantage then you have a chance..lol.. so to compare it to another CM game.. U.S. vs Soviets in cold war is almost UKR vs Russia in black sea..

[@ctw9735]

As it should be

[@mymneisadj]

@@ctw9735 oh dont take me wrong not complaining ... just adjusting ..lol

[@SSFhighcommandJOHN]

Depends on the time period. By the start of the 80s you have the first Abrams rolling off the lines, and by 85' the A1 with chobam and the 120mm gun.

[@mathewm7136]

Great video and thanks. I actually served for eight years in the 80's in the AR BN that was the last active duty equipped with M60A3's. It's my understanding that the RISE system ended up being used exclusively by the USMC. When I going through AR Officer Basic in 84, the Marine LT's were trained exclusively (maintenance/Gunnery) on the RISE. -I never meet a "Starship" crew that absolutely hated them. They were so maintenance heavy and problematic that you spent more time fixing or using the "degraded" systems than driving (So I was told). Something was always broke inside.

[@michaelsnyder3871]

OK, the RISE meant Reliability-Improved-Selected Equipment, where the engine was rebuilt to AVDS-1790-2C standard. The USMC tankers were probably pulled out because the USMC retained the M60A1 at a time when the US Army had either M60A3 TTS or M1. They had to be taught to use the mechanical coincidence RF, analog computer and mechanically linked sights and gun.

[@Centurion101B3C]

As a Centurion Mk5/2 TC from the latter part of the Cold War, I had a rather ambivalent view on the main allied partner's main battle tank, the M60. Although the venerable Centurion is not a small combat vehicle by any measure, a cursory glance at the M60 towering height, inevitably made me cringe in awed aversion. Certainly the fact that it did not use the very effective HESH did not improve my personal estimate on its efficacy, but that might be my personal preference acting up. I would certainly appreciate a similar assessment of the late cold-war Centurion and its variants (NATO, IDF, Swiss, South African and Swedish). Thank you for the very enlightening (if somewhat confirming my personal bias) presentation.

[@frangiblecover6350]

I'm afraid that by my assessment the Centurion is sadly worse. As many problems as the M60 has, the Centurion is slower with less armour and the same gun. The yanks did have 'HEP' which is identical to your HESH rounds, but despite what your gunnery instructors told you HESH is basically worthless against the T-64/72/80 and the uparmoured T-55/62 variants. I've seen different estimates of its effectiveness against basic T-55/62 types but there are certainly credible accusations that 105mm HESH was also almost entirely defeated by the installation of kevlar spall liners. Regardless, the HESH will do no better than the HEAT rounds shown in this video and is really better reserved for personnel carriers or buildings. A quick run through of the variants: Danish - Basically just an LRF, fine for what it was for which is fighting Marines on islands. Israeli - Good engine upgrade, worthless ERA Swedish/South African/Singaporean - As Israeli Swiss - Not a Cent, but I will be even nastier about the Panzer 68

[@Centurion101B3C]

@@frangiblecover6350 So noted.

[@michaelsnyder3871]

@@Centurion101B3C As mentioned above, the US tankers used the M456 HEAT round with a muzzle velocity of 3,850fps versus the 2,400 fps of the M393A1 HEP. The HEAT round was more accurate at a greater range. The Israelis preferred the L52 APDS because they could bore sight to 1,800 meters, which was still quite out side the 1,000 meter effective range of the 100mm D-10 and 115mm U-5TS.

[@Centurion101B3C]

@@michaelsnyder3871 So noted.

[@bravobravo7901]

Simply all of the westard are full of grabage, even have a lot useless equipment, even M16 couldn't hit a target on 0 meters and jammed everytimes, LOL.

[@TraitorsGambit]

Your channel got me into the CM franchise. I like the mix of history and technical specs type video Would like to see more of the asymetrical games. Insurgents vs for example

[@michaelolesen1909]

Outstanding summary on the M60 tank.

[@yeahno6100]

Great video mate, the Combat Mission community is lucky to have you Hapless.

[@jimmehjiimmeehh9748]

The idea that the M68 was an L7 is a misconception in the same way the idea that the M256 is a Rh-120. The M68 comes as a development from the T140 105 gun which has been adapted to have ammunition commonality with the L7. They have different chambers and such and so are different guns.

[@michaelsnyder3871]

Sorry, all references from US Army procurement documents to Honicutt and Zaloga indicate that the M68 is an American adaptation, with fewer parts, of the L7, and can fire any STANAG ammo designed for the L7, though fire control won't be the same as it is calibrated for the US ammo. The same with the M256, an adaptation with fewer parts than the RN-120. The T-140 was abandoned during the T54 and T95 programs as it was longer and heavier than the L7, also tested in the T95 and M48 vehicles, but w/o any superiority over the L7.

[@Fallenhalo88]

Loved the emotional support missile cameo

[@run2u520]

One thing I've learned from fighting M60s during the Soviet campaign was that they're quite good at spotting when compared to the soviet tanks. M60s don't seem to lose the spot whenever they fire while soviet tanks will often lose sight from the dust kicked up by their guns, this seems to be true even for the variants that are not M60A3 (TTS).

[@usuallyhapless9481]

Not something I've really noticed, but it could be to do with the fact that Soviet tanks have a lower profile- the gun is closer to the ground, so it the blast of a shot throws up more dust in front of the lower optics. The M60 is super tall, so in theory the blast effect on the ground is less, so less dust and it has to rise higher to impede the higher optics up on the cupola. Maybe.

[@run2u520]

@@usuallyhapless9481 This problem seems to affect how soviet tanks react when they are hit as well. Take a T-80 getting a non-penetrating hit from a 105mm APFDS, while the tank might be fine, the dust caused by the impact would usually blind the gunner and instead the tank would go into reverse and continue to get pummeled by the offending American tank.

[@usuallyhapless9481]

@@run2u520 That seems like a perfectly sensible reaction to getting shot. Nobody likes just sitting there and taking it.

[@whya2ndaccount]

I'm assuming the Xenon searchlight's white light mode isn't modelled? Also with the TTS variant you might want to try popping smoke prior to engaging (i.e. turret down, pop smoke, move to hull down) that way the smoke is providing the tank with concealment while it is still being able to engage targets. Also a minor correction, T-62 has a 115mm gun, not 110mm. :)

[@DwightPruitt]

The M60A2 carried HEAT, Cannister, and Shillelagh, no HE. It was never called "Starship" by its' crews. That was a post service nickname given to it by the modeling communtiy

[@Mechanized85]

Even having HE(High-explosive) or Canister shot either all 4 types of ammo were stored in the tank, what was any different in the end, this tank still faced a short time of service and then, got to phase out in 1981?

[@jht5225]

So happy to see more of your content. That video about the professional version was mental :D loved this video as always

[@Hy93Ri0n]

man what an ugly piece of work the Patton line of tanks were. Fitting given the namesake I suppose. Thanks for the Content, I'm really looking forward to Cold War's Steam release

[@4rnnr_as]

Lol, don't blame the namesake haha. I'm not convinced they were any worse than the hordes if BMP1s and T55-62s they were supposed to face, nor particularly more troublesome than the Centurion, Chieftain or Leopard 1.

[@ioannisschoinopoulos1359]

I don't know the M48 and M60 are some of my favourite tanks aesthetically wise

[@karlhungus545]

Great video as always, very informative. You may have actually convinced me to get Cold War...seems like a fair fight for once (regarding the modern titles).

[@decimated550]

You may have played video games before the past where you're always fighting with the top of the line American M1 tanks. Like I'm one tank latoon 1 and 2 or other titles. But in this game the Americans are it's are outmatched in terms of numbers and quality . You'll have the devil's own time attacking with M113 apc w unprotected gunners versus BMP w 73 mm or 30mm armored turrets . And your M60 tanks blow up so easily . I wonder how the Israelis were able to prevail in the desert against the enemy with the same equipment as the Russians

[@kondor99999]

Soviet doctrine from the 50s through early 80s was to use HEAT as the primary tank round, so it’s pretty cool that the TacAI adheres to that doctrine. The sabot round was very much an afterthought and only really regained prominence once the HEAT-resistant characteristics of “Chobham” armor became more widely known in the mid 80s.

[@yoloman3607]

That just isn’t true. The Soviets were the first to adopt smoothbore cannons in the T-62’s specifically for the APFSDS after the T-55’s ammunition quickly proved obsolete. The Soviets found the kinetic rounds far more satisfactory with better velocity leading to better practical accuracy over HEAT. That is why the carousel Soviet tanks all favor more APFSDS in the carousel. HEAT is preferred for dealing with IFV’s however.

[@jasonli2474]

new 100mm gun? The T-54 reused the gun from the Su-100 that served in WW2.

[@michaelsnyder3871]

There was a great comment below about using tank turrets for defensive fortifications, a concept developed by the Soviets before 1941. The Soviets used tank turrets of tanks removed from service along the Amur River and elsewhere along their border with the PRC. The Austrians did the same, putting Centurion, T34/85, Charioteer, M47 and even M60A1 turrets. Why the BRD and DDR did not fortify the border was that it would make a political statement that there WERE TWO Germanies, something neither side was prepared to do. On both sides, the division of Germany was seen as a temporary political situation which would eventually change as it did. It would have been questionable when you consider that the tank turrets would be M47 and M48 turrets with 90mm M36/M41 guns and Centurions with 20pdrs, and maybe 105mm L7. Even the Conqueror and M103 turrets would need updated ammo for their 120mm guns to deal with upgraded T72 and T80.

[@Mechanized85]

off the path, isn't it?

[@roninsct7017]

..RL insights on the M60A3 TTS...as a place to live in its way more comfortable and roomier than an M1. It had better traction going up steep slopes than the M1. There's a driver escape hatch below the seat..pain in the butt to reinstall! The TTS was actually newer than the TIS system on the M1..its a tv screen vs looking into a scope type ocular sight..you couldn't scan for more than 30 min without getting serious eye strain and headaches on the TIS. I was trained in basic to operate M1A1's but the unit I got to in Spring 1988 didn't transition from M60A3 TTS to M1A1HA in Fall 1989 so had experience in 2 gunneries and 2 FTX's in Grafenwoehr, Vilseck and Wildflicken ( mountain side gunnery in a Bavarian winter yay) Bobsledding in a 60 ton tank down a Bavarian slope on black ice..fun times. The M1 was way faster, quieter, lower slung and cramped except for the driver's seat. It was absolutely easier to do maintenance on because of the first true modularity compared to old WW2 tech. Oh if dismounting from the tank, the crew should be armed with M1911A1 pistols M3 Grease gun submachineguns till 1991, the loader gets an M16A2 post 1989..

[@decimated550]

16:38 I can't believe no one discussing the starship on KZbin has ever put Nicki Minaj's song as a whimsical backtrack to it. Especially given that this variant had so many

[@usuallyhapless9481]

KZbin is pretty on top of musical copyright

[@Fercyful]

Thanks for the great videos! Still waiting for the game at Steam. hope soonTM

[@SSFhighcommandJOHN]

Wait, if this take's place from 73, to 82, wouldn't there still be a few M103s hanging around the Fulda Gap with the old plan to bunker down until they run out of ammo? (It was in service until 74. It's in the time range.)

[@usuallyhapless9481]

Ah, 79-82. Bit late for the M103.

[@SSFhighcommandJOHN]

@@usuallyhapless9481 Aw, well. Would still be interesting to see.

[@michaelsnyder3871]

@@SSFhighcommandJOHN US Army ditched its M103s in the early 1960s. Only the USMC operated the M103 after that and they were replaced by M60A1 in the early-mid 1970s.

[@sirfanatical8763]

Thanks for the Masterclass

[@therealCG62]

Does the base M60A1 have a stabilizer? I was under the impression the A1 didn't get a stab until AOS... because for some reason the US army went from being one of the only (if not _the_ only) nations to field a stabilizer on all of its common tanks (with the exception of specific variants like the M4 with the 105mm), so not fielding any at all on the Pershing and Patton series. I'd also say the Patton having as much internal volume as it does isn't necessarily indicative of it being an old-style vehicle, that's just kind of American armor design philosophy. The Abrams has quite a bit of room inside as well- not so much as the M60 mind, I seem to remember seeing that the M60 was the tallest tank ever put to mass production somewhere- but still quite a bit of room inside, especially compared to Russian tanks. Also, if you ever want to play around with one of these things in first person, Steel Armor: Blaze of War is a very good tank simulator. They even model the optical rangefinder.

[@d.c.6065]

Hey, nice video Hapless! Congratulations on 8k subscribers- I got you your very own KZbin troll as a gift!

[@DrewShotsFan]

That was REALLY useful. Thanks UH, as always

[@jsilva4595]

Love the content, hap. I want to start doing Combat Mission videos myself, do you mind telling me what capture and editing software you use?

[@usuallyhapless9481]

I'm currently using Bandicam. I used OBS and Shadowplay too for a while at one point.

[@weirdwwii8775]

Great stuff as always

[@NickRiggs]

Great video as always!

[@usuallyhapless9481]

Thanks very much man!

[@markraffety3246]

Great video as always. A friend of mine was involved in comparison trials between the M1 and the M60. The M1 won in all categories except one...fuel consumption. The M60s diesel cycled down a long way when idling. The M1's engine hardly cycled down at all. In combat situations the M1 burned almost as much fuel waiting in a hill defilade position as it did when driven. The M46 and M48 were both good tanks in their own rights and the M48 would have been adequate until the Abrams since a fight between the US and USSR would have gone nuclear quickly anyway. The Brits traded the excellent centurion for the chieftain which was a mechanical nightmare. The Leopard 1 and the S tank were the two masterpieces produced in the West prior to the Abrams/Challenger era.

[@Pvt.Conscriptovich]

Surprise to be sure but a welcome one.

[@tonyjoka2346]

Let's goo pls do a vid on the t 64 or t 80

[@mikemcginley6309]

I hope that in the game nobody lines up on flat level ground, sit still,and starts shooting.

[@mschakowski]

Quick Question: Can you view and/or edit unit statistics such as armour and penetration values or are they hidden away?

[@usuallyhapless9481]

It's all hidden away, unless it crops up in the manual, but definitely uneditable.

[@vinnart]

Always well produced, narrated, and informative Hap. One thing I wish you would have mentioned is is it best to keep buttoned or not like a ww2 tank to see better? I've heard it is, but am assuming with the later models better to keep buttoned to rely on improved optics?

[@usuallyhapless9481]

I'm actually not sure. IIRC even in the M60A3 TTS, the commander doesn't actually have his own thermal sight, just a repeater showing him what the gunner is seeing, so it would come down to his optics and whether they're better than binos.

[@CH-pv2rz]

One can tell you have no concept whatsoever of what you are posting about.

[@nobodyherepal3292]

Good god, the m60 was kinda crap wasnt it?

[@MegalonJonesSlattery]

It all depends. If the Patton family is the only thing standing in the way of Soviet domination of Europe, then yeah....it won't work. However, if 7th Army is instead thought of as a trip wire for the nukes, then it works. Flexible response came online in 1968. That's when the DOD was forced to make it's tanks more competitive eventually ending with the M1. The M60A3 TTS is a beast.

[@burningphoneix]

I mean, it was created to counter the T-55 so it was pretty decent at that. The Soviets put a lot of emphasis on their tank arm and kept rolling out new models while the US just upgraded the 60.

[@Sujamma_Enjoyer]

No both tank could pen each other

[@Mechanized85]

@nobodyherepal3292 that word only came from your mouth, even though the M60 was considered not enough to deal with Newer soviet tanks, it remains still useful in combat, otherwise, what even point putting the M60 tank into service? if under according you say those tanks are kinda crap.

[@nobodyherepal3292]

@@Mechanized85 because it was the only thing we had prior to the M1 and it was made for a outdated doctrine?

[@sal2841]

My dude when is the next video going to be released?

[@whyme943]

Does cold war have m48s?

[@usuallyhapless9481]

Yes, but only M48A5s IIRC

[@mr.imperial8721]

I wonder if anyone has ever placed a 20mm rotary cannon on top of an m60 Patton.....(instead of the 105mm)....

[@jasonpeacock9735]

It’s the M60, not the Leman Russ Punisher.

[@robertkalinic335]

All i hear is, SOVIET POWER SUPREME!!!

[@decimated550]

@@Mechanized85 Maybe if the scenarios were set in 1987, with the M1 and the M2 fielded in great numbers. But I tell you even with great tactics as the Americans you still take heavy losses. Because the Soviet tanks are as good or better, and there are more of them

[@Rutang835]

yay! :)

[@oleksandradamenko586]

Ну да вряд-ли М60 что-то сможет противопоставить против Т-64, Т-72, Т-80

[@decimated550]

In the game it's very hard to do, but the Israelis Achieved it in real life over many decades, with a very favorable kill ratio against Soviet designs

[@bryanfu-oj3lo]

⁸

[@TheSonOfDumb]

I disagree

[@RomanHistoryFan476AD]

Going to explain why maybe you could convince people to see your way?

[@PaulMcElligott]

With what specifically?

[@CH-pv2rz]

The M60 was never called a Patton. Your use of that name for the M60 in this video is Disingenuous. Get your head out of your fourth point of contact and into some books on US Armored Development. You’re video is an embarrassment.

[@PaulMcElligott]

Wow. Aren’t we full of ourselves?

[@copter2000]

LMAO, imagine reading a book in 2023. What a nerd.

[@admiralgalactica]

The Tank is called "Patton" from a Lot of people altough it isnt really called Patton so deal with it