T-64 vs M60 Main Battle Tank Comparison

[@_Matsimus_]

Excellent video :-)

[@RedEffectChannel]

Thanks man, your support means a lot :)

[@harv5425]

:-)

[@elsauce4873]

RedEffect do Strv 122 vs Leopard 2a5

[@letsgobrandontrump2024]

Two of my favorite people in one place 🥳

[@MackieLevyn]

As Matt would later confirm, the T-64 was the best of its time.

[@stewie1237]

Arguably some of the best videos on youtube, underrated channel.

[@tomvobbe9538]

Gangnam style?

[@mattwells8832]

A-1h

[@FHM1199]

Whoah that Pro level editing at 6:09. Great video by the way :D

[@RedEffectChannel]

well thank you dear sir, it took me a lot of skills to edit that part :)

[@Mil-ug9ey]

HM1199 what happend to you T-50 PAK FA myths busting video? i really liked it :/

[@FHM1199]

Oh , its a long story , but to give in short terms , i went through some mental issues some time ago , and the doctor told me to put away things familiar to my past routine , i first wanted to delete my videos , first viseo that got deleted was the busting myths viseo , then i decided to not do it with the others , and private my videos until i feel better . Thats why my other videos are back now.

[@Mil-ug9ey]

HM1199 hopefully you get even better soon

[@FHM1199]

Ay thanks a lot

[@Tonixxy]

It's worth noting that at the time HEAT was where all the rage was not APFSDS. In my oppinion T-64 had better armor and gun. Americans improved by light years with Abrams though.

[@janchovanec8624]

M60 was never intended as a true MBT, since MBT-70 was already tested. It was more like a cheap temporary inventory boost, rather than a multiple decade warhorse solution. The only reason why it served for so long was project MBT-70 failure.

[@thunberbolttwo3953]

Well the m-60 is just a m-48 with a difrent ruret and 105mm gun.instead of the 90mm gun.

[@robertclark1669]

To be honest if I had my own army I would use The M60a3 for infantry support or defense capability I would use The Leopard or abrams for tank killing and a tank life the T64-T72 or T80 for a General Purpose main battle tank.

[@thunberbolttwo3953]

@@robertclark1669 For a lot of countrys the m-60-a3 is still a good tank.For most third world countrys its still a valid combat platform.

[@DokturProfesur]

The T64 and later Soviet MBTs really spat on the NATO assertions that HEAT made armor obsolete.

[@zer0f0x69]

back in the coldwar days a T-64 was more than a match for an M-60, and the T-64 would have been the kind of tank for the elite tank army's of the U.S.S.R.

[@zer0f0x69]

then again an I think an M-60A3 slep would give a T-64 a run for its money :)

[@許進曾]

I guess the prototype m60 2000 would be a match to the t64

[@tigersympathiser2265]

Please don't say "M-60" the - isn't needed

[@matheusguerrascheffer6518]

@NC Dave I don't think the Abrams is that good, compared with the Leo 2A7V it's like shermans vs panthers all over again...

[@Weisior]

Elite tank army? You know that they build over 8000 of these T-64 tanks, right?

[@M60gunner1971]

I love the M60 Tank but the T-64 would have ate it's lunch. Maybe two on one the M60 would win but that's unacceptable as the Soviets had more tanks.

[@123-d9b]

But the thing was the Russian had much outdated tanks end less t64

[@ARC-Driver]

@@123-d9b not really. The soon to arrive t-80 and t-72 can put up a fight

[@QualityPen]

123 The T-55 and T-62 were fine tanks, not yet obsolete, and T-72 replaced them before long. The T-72 with modernization is still a serviceable tank for the modern battlefield, if somewhat underarmored compared to the T-90, T-14, or western tanks. The T-72 had a terrible showing in Iraq, but that was a version which hadn’t been modernized in decades. The Iraqi army was still using mild steel ammunition which was 4 decades old by that point. It never stood a chance of penetrating the M1 from the front.

[@carverboycarverboy2097]

The video completely ignores the biggest difference between the 64 and 60A3. The A3 had a far more advanced fire control system with crosswind sensor,LRF, gun stabilization and the TTS which was actually better than the original M1's thermal sight. in terms of ammo the A3 had depleted uranium APFSDS rounds along with WP and Beehive, though the latter were not anti tank rounds.

[@zakl1ina975]

@@ARC-Driver Did you even watch the video. It literally said that there were few of them and were reserved for elite troops.

[@IceAxe1940]

My great uncle served on the M48A1 1964-65, when his unit was deployed to Vietnam 1/69th Armored early '66 his unit recived the M48A3 Patton, he served on the A3 from 66-72 throughout multiple deployments to Vietnam. After his tour in Nam his unit was fully transferred to Europe and recived the new M60A1 in '73 he felt that the M60 was a huge upgrade over the M48, first the A1 had night vision for the gunner and commander which gave it a huge advantage over the M48A3, they got the L7 105mm or M85 for us Americans which would devastate Soviet T-54/55s and the newer T-62s. Overall he loved the M60 he retired from the U.S. Army by the time of the M1A1 Abrams in the mid 80s as a company first sergeant.

[@carkawalakhatulistiwa]

6:56 stopgap for 20 year

[@snuppssynthchannel]

The M60 was not the most powerful tank of its day, but it was a strategically excellent tank that performed very well, even against more powerful Russian tanks.

[@johndave117]

NATO simp👆👆

[@remogatron1010]

@@johndave117 Russia is evil!

[@mitchfromtheinternet297]

T64A looked expensive and unreliable compared to T72, in other societies it would have been dropped, however I’m glad the soviets didn’t, because T64B was way ahead of its time, and let to entire T80 series. I actually think the soviet method of multiple design bureaus and plants was good for the industry, and offered healthy competition.

[@ravenouself4181]

the west also has it's own fair share of "it should have been dropped due to costs but it wasn't", especially the USA with it's navy. likr, bruh, brand new ships that cost hundreds of billions to develop - can't go into open waters because it breaks in half.

[@rexluna4533]

Two of my favorite channel "matsimus and red effect" ,,,,, alpha defense - not my favorite.

[@antonrudenham3259]

Hi Red Effect. Is there any chance of a comparison between the T64 and the British Chieftain in about 1980?

[@carkawalakhatulistiwa]

T80

[@skullofserpent5727]

Tanks for watching.

[@HD-ew1ii]

Nice video. A straight up technical comparison the T-64 wins. There is no argument about that. The question was always how will it hold up in the real world? The 64 was comparable in size to a 62 and those are cramped. Ive been in them lol. That will effect your performance if you need to fight after you've been like a sardine in a can all day. The other is the auto loader. When everything is lined up within the turret the loader is good. An advantage with the 60 is a live loader. The turret can be in any position and load any type of round with a constant rate of fire of a round every 4-5 seconds. But T-64 was a game changer. There is no propaganda about that at all.

[@Pincuishin]

While the M60 was a great tank the T64 objectively was better in frontal protection, apfds penetration

[@williammcdorman6426]

A Cav unit in Germany was expected to defend about mile of the line with 4 M60A1's and 6 113, 1 Dismounted Tow, a couple of Dragons. Against a Soviet attack force of maybe 200 T62's and another 100 APC's of some type, and thats not even counting counting any other types of attacks...We would have to had to use Nuclear Weapons, no other way to stop a mass attack like that.

[@charlieharper2529]

so, its better to destroy land for next 10,000 years than just let it go?

[@johnknapp952]

@@charlieharper2529 Not true. Look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, both rebuild and occupied within a few years.

[@a.m.armstrong8354]

So true!Nato forces were token value, more of a political deterrent than viable militarily.

[@alancarnell2747]

I took One Station Unit Training at Ft. Knox in 1986 to become a M60A1E1 crewman for National Guard service. I must've been one of the last to train on it. Good times.

[@danielaramburo7648]

If you know, the M60 tanks kept in dry storage as reserve tanks in case of ww3 or have the reserve tanks been replaced with early versions of the M1 Abraham’s?

[@alancarnell2747]

@@danielaramburo7648 no idea.

[@laangelsfan]

@@danielaramburo7648 Most of all the M60 and M48 Tanks were still used by the United States Marines in 80’s and Early 90’s, While The US Army was operating their New Tank Called M1 Abrams🇺🇸

[@laangelsfan]

@@danielaramburo7648 lol no Only Active duty and National guard only Operate tanks, not Reserve since they don’t use for Combat purpose!! Just Active duty and national guard that will see Combat if they’re Combat MOS in the Army

[@spaceshuttledoorgunner125]

can hear the research, intelligence, efforts, editing put into each video you make. thank you for what you do. once i have money, da, i support you. when i can. dasvidaniya.

[@pashapasovski5860]

He's not Russian!

[@Southerly93]

I’m surprised fire rate wasn’t mentioned, since the Russian auto loader was important, and the M60 had the fastest reload of any previous American MBT

[@johnbright191]

I like what you put out. You go right to the point on comparing tanks. Weakness,firepower etc. And I have learned somethings from both sides. Keep up the good research!

[@AlexanderVadimovich]

T-64BV was the best tank in the world in the 60's /70's

[@ahmadn.sakibchowdhury4532]

BV didnt even exist in the "60s and 70"

[@AlexanderVadimovich]

Ahmad N. Sakib Chowdhury oh sorry, I mean the first t-64, my mistake

[@gentlemanzackp6591]

T-64BV was designed in 1985, after the 1984 Bravo follow-up design

[@ukoctane3337]

Indeed. Only thing that could stand up to the T64A of the 60s and 70s realistically was the chieftain on the merit of it being the only thing that could penetrate it reliably at any kind of range. The T64 sas an astounding package. That said, I feel NATO was far more focussed on it's air power since no tank army was going to stop the hordes of the soviet union. Thus they invested in air superiority to grind down a tank advance.

[@JaM-R2TR4]

NATO tanks would try to outmaneuver them and hit them from sides.. side armor is weak enough so it could be penetrated by any 105mm projectile.. so all you need are skilled, professional commanders and crews... which is exactly what NATO had... vs soviet conscript force...

[@BRAVO-du9ed]

From 1977- 1980 I served as a driver/gunner on an M113A1 T.O.W. HAW missile system carrier. In the 8th Infantry Division. We had much respect for Warsaw Pact Armor. Though our primary target was the ZSU 23-4, any Russian armor of the day was more than likely going be engaged and destroyed either by a T.O.W track or a T.O.W Cobra Attack Helicopter before it even saw an M60 A1 on the battlefield. Just the way it was. Any tank is a good tank as long as it stays in the fight.

[@davidflanagan4977]

I think this was a great video and comparison of two likely adversaries if the Cold War went hot. Very good technical side-by-side comparison, the only thing I would dispute was the statement the M-60 series was a "stop-gap" tank until the M-1 arrived. Maybe what could be said is the M-60A3 was a stop gap, and hence the US Army's upgrade program; but the M-60 series had it's genesis in the late 1950s. As far as how one would do against the other in combat, I think if the M-60 were used defensively it would have done satisfactorily, especially the M-60A3 with the excellent TTS fire control system. All around no disputing the T-64 was a much better tank with much better armor and armament. Great video. I crewed an M-60A1 in the US Army National Guard in the mid-1980s. I never saw the M-60A3.

[@petsaa]

Any plans on a video featuring BMP-2 and its variants?APC/IFV video would be a good refreshment from the tank videos!

[@tracerheat]

The upgrade of thermal sites to the M60A3 made its fre control system vastly superior to anything the adversaries fielded. It's thermal sites gave it a substantial advantage in a fight. It's target acquisition ability, because of the thermal site, enabled am M60A3 to find its target and fire first. Perhaps the most important metric in who wins a tank on tank fight. Great channel btw!

[@Fishmanglitz]

Fire control was always a huge advantage for NATO where the Soviets had overall better on paper stats for their equipment, but suffered in the fire control department.

[@jamiecofield6318]

I was in the army 20 years. I went through baisic and AIT at Fort Knox Ky. USA Armor School. I trained on M60A3's and later served with the 1st Squadron and 3rd Squadrons of the 11th Armored Cavalry at the Fulda Gap and at Bad Hersfeld as an M60A3 armor crewman. I also went through M1 Abrams Transition before I left Fulda in Nov 1983. I later served with 1st Bn, 8th Cavalry ,1st CAV Division at Fort Hood TX. I served with 2nd Armor Division, 31st Armor Division, Troop E 31st Cavalry, 1 Bn 152nd Armor, 1st Bn 131 Armor ,35th Infantty Division and 20th special Forces. During my 30 year career.

[@siegfriedmueller5961]

With 300mm armor penetration at 500m the M60 cant destroy the T-64 frontaly with APDS ammunition.

[@michaelhoward7635]

Siegfried Mueller exactly... And it competitively sucked in other ways as well. The West has always made much of the t-64 being an ambitious project and suffering some teething problems, but they were scared shitless

[@lostinthesauce6409]

nah. T-64 have at least 400~mm of effective armour against kenetic on the front of the turrent and 350mm on the frontal plate. whyle it has 290mm and 380mm penetration for APDSFS (depends on the 2 Sabot that exists for the 125mm gun) . at 2000m and 440mm pen at all ranges for HEATFS. the T-64/T-72 were a huge jump on the tanks tec wesh makes all them era absolute

[@Internetbutthurt]

The common version of the T-64 had more than 300mm and even if it had 300mm, to only be vulnerable at 500m.....it would never survive to get that close.

[@KoteDarasuum]

Internetbutthurt if with common version you mean A model

[@elfodilabdelghani8813]

to michael howard not exactly the french and the british did have an answer to the t 64 and t 72 .the heat warheads of the era could defeat any early composite armor the soviets came up with in the sixties and seventies the ss12 missile used by the french has a range of 7 km and a huge warhead capable of destroing any soviet mbt at the time.the british had the swingfire missile with over 800 mm pen and 4 km range.

[@panderson9561]

I was never that impressed with the M60. It wasn't bad, it wasn't great, it just was. It was average at best, and below average when compared to it's potential counterparts...T64/T72.

[@bluntcabbage6042]

Unfair comparison. The T-64 at that time was akin to the T-14 Armata now, a tank produced in smaller numbers for elite units. The M60 was a general-issue MBT meant for _all_ US forces, not just the elite units. The M60 is more like the T-55/T-62 to the Russians, and that is a much better comparison to draw.

[@puebespuebes8589]

Im kind of suprised that the m60 steel armor could still depending on the armor plate stop early heat and apdsfs. Kind if the peak lf steel armor

[@geeknproud321]

I love the Patton series of tanks but no question the T-64 was just a better design in pure combat ability. Tanks like the T-64 and T-72 are what really forced us to replace the M60. The only downside is Soviet tanks are all really tiny inside so us fat and tall Americans would have a hard time being comfortable in them. The Patton can fit just about anyone in its big honking turret. The later M60 variants also get a lot of upgrades that make them excellent machines despite their few major drawbacks(notably weak armor all around). However, ERA just isn't a reliable replacement for more actual armor or better quality armor ie ceramic, chobham and DU. I like a lot of the M1-esque M60 redesigns that happened during the 70s-90s. Some of them were pretty badass and would have been cheaper to operate than the Abrams while offering a lot of the same capabilities. If anything, they were a very reliable platform, with a long service history so tons of parts compatibility. The M1 Abrams has a lot of upsides though despite its many drawbacks. It's a great design and a worthy successor to the Patton. A lot of things about it that look bad on paper seem to work great in the field. Though much more expensive to operate, they're a better overall package.

[@DavidWatersJames]

I conclude...the two were fairly comparable. In a fight, reliability would be a big issue, but they are close enough, that Crew Training would be the deciding factor. I admit, I was appalled at the "cheap" armor of the M-60. Based on that alone, I'd NEVER want to fight the M-60 of any variant. It is noteworthy to state, that M-60 was outclassed by any Tank newer than the T-64, even with ERA added, as Turkey/Israel learned THE HARD WAY. Virtually ANY ATGM will easily kill the M-60.......so those still using it, are in for a rude awakening. ( As will RPG-7 )

[@shubidubi2821]

The ERA used on M60's by Israeli in the 1982 were pretty effective. This is why they Russians copied and started using them after that war

[@johnulmer6715]

Jesus. I was stationed in Germany in the mid 80s when bulk of the tanks were still the M60s. Glad I didn't know about the discrepancy or I might not have slept much.

[@Ostenjager]

Look at the M60/M60a1 performance in the Yom Kippur War, and the USMC’s use of the M60a3 in the battle for Kuwait International Airport in 1991. I think you would have been alright in your M60s.

[@Ostenjager]

The USMC went to combat in M60a3’s against the Iraqi Army, who had a force many times their battalion’s size. Those M60a3’s utterly demolished the Iraqi force. The IA had a mix of T-55s, T-62s, and T-72s. The IA lost something like over a hundred tanks, and the USMC lost one, which was because it tried to breach a minefield. The Israelis also used the M60 and M60a1 against the earlier models of those same tanks in the Yom Kippur war, and demolished those too. IDF casualties came from Egyptian crewed ATGMs. On paper, the Soviet tanks are “better”, but the reality seemed to play out differently.

[@pell9538]

There's a difference here however, when the t64 rolled out of factories for the first time it had high armor and a stabilizer. At that time the US tank forces was made up of old 90mm m48 tanks and m60's that lacked stabilizers. The t64 when it came out was absolutely better than the m60 however the cost to produce a t64 reflected that with the t64 being much more expensive to make. by the time of the gulf war m60's had been upgraded with stabilizers and advanced targeting systems as well as ERA and the most modern 105mm rounds of the day, the Iraqi's 125mm rounds were already old and outdated resulting in them being out ranged and easily penetrated by the Marine's upgraded m60 tanks.

[@tragiet367]

T64bm :)

[@mbtenjoyer9487]

Poor argument Most of “Soviet tanks” used by Iraq were old obsolete variant used poorly

[@ivancho5854]

@@mbtenjoyer9487 Just like the "Soviet" tanks used by Russia in the Ukraine. Hang on I'm noticing a pattern here. 🤣

[@ivancho5854]

@@pell9538 I believe that the economic stress caused by the arms race between the US and the Soviet Union was a major contributor to the collapse of the latter. There's more than one way to win a war. The Cold War 2.0 is shaping up similarly. 🤣👍 Slava Ukraine. 🇺🇦🇬🇧

[@tonnywildweasel8138]

You know your stuff !! Thanks for sharing, appreciate it a LOT 👍

[@AllThingsCubey]

Wouldn't it be better to compare to Chieftain, as the T-64s were concentrated against British forces in Germany, and not against US?

[@a.m.armstrong8354]

One of the few sensible comments on this thread. The M60 was a lash-up job junking contractors bits of kit on a platform obsolete upon deployment. To understand how contractors undermined defence options, for 10 years the US was without an adequate MBT and even when the Abrams became operational, the Americans used a 105mm gun. Prior to this they rejected a Leopard 2 Austere Version, armed with the same L7 gun, standardisation was a big thing then. It was laughable.

[@AllThingsCubey]

@@a.m.armstrong8354 The USA has always been highly resistant to arming their tanks equivelant to their enemy. Think back to the Sherman on WW2 and how resistant the Army was to putting the bigger 76mm gun on it when they had them in inventory. Abrams with the 105mm is a sad extension of that, using a 30 year old gun because they had significant ammunition stocks and always took the minimum firepower possible for the need. Luckily they saw sense and swapped to the smoothbore 120mm relatively early.

[@a.m.armstrong8354]

@@AllThingsCubey Yes, the US does logistics in a structural way..There was a time when the 105mm gun was on Leopard 1's & M60's. The thinking was should W Europe be overrun, US resupply would enable NATO to prepare for a counterattack or theatre containment. The WW2 analogy is interesting: The 75mm gun a remnant of the 'infantry tank' concept, where a relatively mobile 'medium tank' fought with combined arms units, while high-velocity 'tank destroyers' were attached to units, to deal with 'tanks'. The British used the Churchill for their 'infantry tank' but with the concept of a faster, lighter armoured 'cruiser' tank such as the Cromwell to exploit any breakthroughs. I might be wrong but that's my take. I agree with your point about it being economics and logistics determining fighting capability, not the abstract notion that the enemy might have better ways to punch holes in your heavy metal, than you have for perforating theirs!

[@sneakybuddy8084]

Hay bro, what is the name of the song in the back?

[@johnhealy9238]

These are the boys that would've traded punches at the Fulda Gap in the 60s. Thank God it never happened

[@wierdlifedude5283]

hi please makre a video on the diferences between tanks like t54 vs t55, t62 vs t64, t64 vs t72, t72 vs t80 and so on. so that people can understand a bit more the diferences between them and why they where made

[@Lenzabi]

Yeah, M60 was a development of the Patton series of MBTs used by the US using the best gun of the time, the L68 105mm. It was not a stop gap for the Abrams as that was a whole new project that the MBT-70 failed to fulfill, and that US did not wish to license build the Leopard 2. So, I served in the US Army in the mid 1980's, the early, 1054mm armed M1 Abrams was quite new, an still our tanks were mostly M60's until later, after the mid 11980's such as 1986 when they were still used by USMC. Some nations are still using upgraded variants of the old M60 series off the M60A3. Had these tanks, The M-60 and the T-64 faced each other, the M6 would be well served seeing the T-64 break down and the crew run from it. But as said, Soviets still had proven T-55's and T-62's but also, side project T-72's were also coming online in the Cold War era, we had posters trying to teach us where to shoot T-72 and T-80 on top of T-62 and T-55 tanks.

[@ravenouself4181]

the m-60 is probably the best looking american tank ever built.

[@amaladiguna8873]

Love the video! Would like to see you talk about more of these old tanks and maybe lesser known tanks (like third world tank variants like the enigma), but maybe that's just me :)

[@chandrachurniyogi8394]

the turret like commander's observation hatch of the M60A2 Patton armoured (STANAG 4569 3A+/3B) main battle tank on the upper turret is totally unnecessary . . .

[@SCUBAelement-Intl]

Hey RedEffect thanks for the good information!

[@sparrow9990]

can you compare m60 to t55 siries and t62

[@maxim6088]

a pershing on steroids vs a modern auto-reloading beast...

[@davidmorris80]

Good vid mate.

[@RedEffectChannel]

Thanks m8

[@Waltham1892]

The T-64 was the better tank on paper, but it didn't work while the M60 did.

[@Чеховський-ы8ю]

T-64 still work nice till now.

[@gOtze1337]

T-64 was a gamechanger, revolutionary in every aspect. but i heard its reliability wasnt that good, and it was realitve expensive.

[@charlieharper2529]

Price was like 4 pieces of T72s

[@harrybyaqussamprayuga1756]

Yeaa good video and all but one question. Where did you and Matsimus get those really sick thumbnails in the first place?

[@Samovarius]

With what was the aluminium filler replaced in the T-64B?

[@nono9370]

Samovarius quartz

[@a.m.armstrong8354]

Carborundum.

[@doneddydimsum888]

Outstanding research job...

[@nuraly78]

Nice video. Few mistakes though. The thickest part of m60 is 143mm. T-64A and T-64B have completely different hulls. Early T-64A had problems with canon, which were revised in 1976

[@stilpa1]

No it didnt just US lies

[@cursedcliff7562]

@@stilpa1 probably the autoloader failing to chamber a round

[@stilpa1]

@@cursedcliff7562 no

[@josephcraig2702]

Either you are ignoring the actual dates were many of these types of ammunition where used by the M60 or you are doing bad research. Not just the M60A3 used apfsds. The A1 variance also had access to apfsds in the form of both the m735 and in 774 rounds, both of which were capable of penetrating the T64A. The T64B would be impenetrable from the front to the M60 until the introduction of the M 833 round, which was referred to as the silver bullet in the first gulf war due to it being able to penetrate Iraqi T64s and T72s at any range.

[@a.m.armstrong8354]

Iraq never had ANY T64's.

[@dmanbiker]

Aw man, you skipped the M60A2-- the greatest tank of all time! /s

[@Swarmie]

Dmanbiker lol

[@stilpa1]

No

[@76456]

The video is about t64 vs m60 were he compare different variations of them how arrived at the same time

[@rhino1207]

some people believe M60A2 was actually designed by alien

[@steveclarke6257]

We....no!

[@jakab7355]

T64 kompozit armor and automata relode system m60 nothing...

[@IvanDrago5775]

This video is so fu***ing depressing with this piano BS, I WANNA CRY!!!!!!

[@RikkiMMA]

"that's it, tanks for watching"

[@roberthambrick3190]

I could be mistaken but I think the Iraqis had the t64 during the 1st gulf war but Marine Corps tankers in m60s destroyed some of them. The rest were taken out but the army and thier Abrams, from the air, ect. Again, i could be wrong.

[@mbtenjoyer9487]

I don’t think Iraq had them T-64 former and current operator : Congo Transnistria Russia Ukraine Donetsk Luhansk Uzbekistan Angola Belarus Kazakhstan Soviet Union

[@IceAxe1940]

Iraq only utlized the T-72, T-62, T-54/55, and Type 59 tanks.

[@punman5392]

Why do heat rounds always seem to have a flat front? Surely it would benefit their aerodynamics to have some sort of hollow nosecone

[@cursedcliff7562]

The drag of a surface decreases by the square so a shell that is two times smaller has 4 times less drag, and so the flat fuze that has a very small surface area wont slow it down much, plus heat shells usually aren't very fast so they can be indirectly shot

[@evanbrown2594]

Good video! Main edge the M60A3 would bring was the excellent thermal system for the gunner. Being able to shoot first was a big advantage. Unless it is shooting the M833, the T-64B is going to be able to soak up more a few M735 and shoot back.

[@RedEffectChannel]

Well, as far as I know M60A3 didn't receive thermal immediately, but, as I read, in 1980, I was comparing variants that simply came out at extremely similar time, sure if it was TTS variant it would have an advantage in terms of spotting.

[@JamesVDBosch]

T-64B didn't initially receive armour upgrades to the glacis, and the turret changes weren't significant, so M735 would pose as great a threat to the T-64A as it does against a T-64B.

[@DSRT888]

American armour until the M1A1 has always been underwhelming. The upper hull of the M60A3 a 1980 tank is really just a 1952 M47's 100mm armour slopped at an extra 5 degrees. The Turret design was from 1962. Then again as you said it was a stop gap until the M1 Abrams. For sure on paper the M60 is willfully underpowered compared to the T-64A/B and this is well known. However I was hoping too see more of a technological comparison in terms of equipment.

[@JamesVDBosch]

Not entirely, the M60 had a 93mm glacis sloped back at 65°, the M60A1 onwards had 109mm sloped back @ 65°, but more importantly, the MG port which the M47 had was removed, which drastically increases the overal structural integrity of glacis.

[@cheguevara3392]

It's not a hard thing to answer! Especially the comparison between the two!

[@janchovanec8624]

Great video, however a slight misconception. You see M60 was kept so long because of MBT-70 project failed. They were well aware of USSR stepping up greatly, so M60 was just a cheap interim solution.

[@BigSmartArmed]

Not even a comparison, be it with its engine overheating and weak suspension issues, T-64 is not in the same league as M60, the same way as T-80 outclasses M1 (gun tube launched ATGMs bust M1s before they get into gun range).

[@evanbrown2594]

The T-80B with the At-8 isn't meant to kill the M1. Very few instances where you will be able to see a Abrams at 4km shoot it. You disclose your location wait those long seconds while they go for cover and engage you back. Unlikely to penetrate if you manage to hit.. Save them for the Bradley and M901 shooting the Tow-2 at you. Tow-2 with 900mm of pen in 1983, and near 4km range. This was your priority at long range.

[@BigSmartArmed]

Not even close. The entire point of SACLOS gun launched ATGMs is to ambush and engage enemy tanks prior to them entering gun firing range, specifically because launches of ATGMSs are entirely INVISIBLE to the enemy. The first gen of Kobra had 80% hit probability at 4 thousand meter and penetration of 600mm, which is frontal penetration of anything NATO had at the time. That means that when sighted at long range by air recon, NATO tanks had no chance to even open fire before they'd get hit. For T-80 a new model was developed, with increased warhead penetration and more accurate guidance. Here's the breakdown by year; 1975 9M112 600mm (beginning of production for T-64) 1977 9M112M 720mm (T-80 mod) 1983 9M112M2 840mm (end production) 1984 9M124 1080mm (beginning of production) 1988 9M128 twin warhead (end production, replaced by Svir and Refleks) By 1984 Soviets had a gun launched ATGM with penetration value higher then TOW2, while soft skinned armor was to be engaged by air delivered cluster munitions, SMERCH/GRAD and long range artillery PRIOR to entering engagement range. Ever since the Red Army took Europe from the Nazis, Soviet tanks had absolute superiority in numbers, firepower and range, it's just that way anyway you slice it. Since the late 40s Fulda gap was nothing more then an asshole with a Soviet boot over it ready to stomp right through it.

[@evanbrown2594]

There is a great deal of myth and half truth here I can't let it slide. "Not even close. The entire point of SACLOS gun launched ATGMs is to ambush and engage enemy tanks prior to them entering gun firing range. One paragraph in and you are way off base. "The entire point of SACLOS gun launched ATGMs is to ambush and engage enemy tanks " No it was an option to engage platforms that could out range the effective range of the 125mm ammo at the time in the tactical situations where it was necessary. Accuracy of HEAT ammo from T-80B at 2km....46%..in peace time at the range, while not being shot back at.... " specifically because launches of ATGMSs are entirely INVISIBLE to the enemy."" Which enemy? If a T-64B can see a M1 Abrams M60A3 or M2 Brad, then these systems can see them. American tanks M60A3 and M1 Abrams had thermals a generation ahead of anything AFVs of the USSR had. In the real world what shows up on thermals isn't just the hot metal it is the exhaust of tanks, and most importantly the heated particulate matter produced by smokey diesel engines in soviet tanks, and rocket motors. So these tanks which will be visible from long range start shooting their GLATM, it is going to show up, in no way was it invisible to any American and German system with thermal images, which by the early 1980s was basically all new systems. Where you got this idea..... "The first gen of Kobra had 80% hit probability at 4 thousand meter and penetration of 600mm, which is frontal penetration of anything NATO had at the time." 80% under clear weather testing conditions, with rounds that are not jammed, from prepared routs or static, and a exposed static tank target. Great not a moving target shooting back, with smoke and dust from arty bombardment and burning vehicles obscuring the LOS to the target. Oh and rounds that work correctly The At-8 like all GLATM American and Soviet, developed in the 1970s and early 1980s, reliability was truly awful, and only a handful of rounds were ever available to even front line units. "That means that when sighted at long range by air recon, NATO tanks had no chance to even open fire before they'd get hit." How is Air recon better at getting a gunner on target then the TTS of the M60A3 or the M1 or the M2 or M901? I am sure it sounded smart when you wrote this... "By 1984 Soviets had a gun launched ATGM with penetration value higher then TOW2" No they did not..Physics and what is know about warhead designs at the time makes this abundantly clear. If you want prove you don't know anything about this topic and are just regurgitating fan boy nonsense posted elsewhere you probably couldn't have done a better job. In the early to mid 1980s, in both NATO and the USSR, the best performance you could get from HEAT warheads was 6-7 CD. Experiential work pushed it slightly higher, but in anything mass manufactured 6-7 was all you were going to get.. That is with standoff probes "wave shaping advanced initiation" advanced explosives and liner materials..Tow-2. ~ 150mm warhead with early with advanced alloy liner, and standoff probe developed in the early 1980s gets about 880-900mm RHA or 6-CD. Knowing this you claim a ~125mm warhead weighing ~4.5 KG outperforms a 150mm warhead weighing 6 kg. with no standoff probe... Also that this 125mm warhead achieves a penetration of almost 9 CD. The first version of the Kornet gets a CD of 7-8 a decade later FYI... I have seen claims like this float around but with no solid evidence or source material...Just vague claims of increased performance etc..The fact these numbers didn't set off your BS detector, reveals a great deal about yourself that you should work harder to conceal. But okay....tell me how the soviets achieved this in the early 1980s. Ugh I'll continue ", while soft skinned armor was to be engaged by air delivered cluster munitions, SMERCH/GRAD" So delivering sub-munitions with a system that stayed in development hell for 7 years and trickled into service just before the collapse of the USSR. Or delivering them with a system that didn't deliver anti tank sub munitions also until the break up of the USSR? Ugh this is easy stuff to check! Also saturating an area with 122mm rockets and 152mm HE, would mean the engagement area would be very badly obscured and all the T-64/72/80 would have very hard time seeing and targeting NATO tanks, while being spotted and engaged rather easily by tanks like the Abrams and Leo-2. This isn't just me, many within the USSR saw this as a disaster waiting to happen and pushed strongly for a re thinking of this strategy. The tank battles in the gulf war proved them correct in this regard. "Soviet tanks had absolute superiority in numbers, firepower and range, it's just that way anyway you slice it." The story is far more complex and I suspect you are not aware of this...making vague open ended statements like that. The USSR gambled and lost with tank design and philosophy, they pushed hard in the 1970s to be able to, if needed to force a confrontation against NATO in the 1980s and win. The reason they did this is they predicted (correctly) that by the late 1980s the economy of the USA would be so large and the industrial and technological gaps would be so vast and growing that they would be put in a position where they could never catch up and a nuclear confrontation would be on the table, which their they suspected their survival was in question. The USSR (well the ones who were listened to..) completely miss judged the advances the USA, the UK and Germany were able to make in areas like metal/ ceramic alloys, armor design (soviet suspicions on the nature of NATO composite armor were completely wrong), thermal imaging (game changer), precision manufacturing, advances in fire control, power plants. The list goes on.. The new NATO tanks were designed to take advantage of these advances. Soviet tanks in large could not, because the technology was too expensive, non exist or couldn't be easily incorporated into the current designs.. There was no way that the USSR could close the technology, numbers in conventional military weaponry that built up in the1980s. Their economy and industrial base just couldn't achieve it. I mean by 1990 there were over 3 M1A1HA tanks for every T-80U west of the Urals..Include M1A1 base model and it gets even worse..they had forging and manufacturing issues with the bm-42 until 1988! There were over 900 AH-64A in service before the Mi-28A prototype even flew.. Soviet super tank projects would have chewed up funding and could never have been produced in anything close to the numbers needed... "Since the late 40s Fulda gap was nothing more then an asshole with a Soviet boot over it ready to stomp right through it." Well yes but the strategy of the USA was to nuke the USSR and bomb it back into the stone age which it could have done up until the 1970s When the USSR pushed to and did eliminate this advantage. They had no desire to fight a conventional war in Europe... This isn't a knock on Russia, or some of the very good qualities of their tanks..I have high respect for what they were able to do with limited resources..they developed some very good systems..but developing and testing things is very different from delivering a combat ready system..Your view on what was possible with the reality of the economic and industrial conditions of the USSR is wishful thinking..

[@BigSmartArmed]

I've skimmed through 2 paragraphs of you saga there, you are clearly ignorant of Soviet conventional warfare doctrine, VPK and general history of various development fields. If not, then feel free to sight the sources you have studied, if not, then keep your imaginative ideas to yourself. You notion of NATO numerical tank superiority to USSR is beyond laughable, it's embarrassingly ignorant. No disrespect intended, but I'm not interested in wasting any more time here, you clearly have nothing tangible to share and I do not waste my time on arguing. Have a good one and just keep doing what you are doing there.

[@evanbrown2594]

You make claims you cite sources..You can't make claims saying that the 9m124 was introduced in 1984 and could burn through a meter of armor when we have blueprints of the missile and the warhead that make it near impossible.. www.russianarms.ru/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1487.0;attach=142532;image Tandem warhead penetration layouts in the 1980 is not cumulative. There is a reason Russian developments in the late 1980s and 1990s used misaligned liners and charges It is 2017 and one thing that is rather clear now is that HEAT penetration figures for NATO and USSR weapons during the cold war are not representative of anything but carefully constructed tests to optimize outcomes. Tow-1A, AT-8, I-Tow, early versions of the Milan..They all struggled against even primitive composite and spaced arrays. Knowing all this statements like "40% improvement" are near useless because we don't even know what the target and test parameters are. The same with APFSDS, the M735 had shatter issue, the Bm-22-26-29 were near hopeless against composite arrays. Even the xM833 and xm829 would yaw and break during acceleration in the bore.. "You notion of NATO numerical tank superiority to USSR is beyond laughable, it's embarrassingly ignorant. " You clearly never read what I wrote and it is a shame... Keep doing you...

[@aquilarossa5191]

I think NATO knew their tanks were outmatched at the time. If war began and the soviets advanced the plan was to immediately use tactical nuclear weapons. Lucky that never happened.

[@scotthulsey8763]

In gulf War Marines in M-60s beat T -55 ,T-62 ,andT-72 easily. So easily I doubt it would have been much different against Russian T 55and T-62s in Europe.

[@cursedcliff7562]

@@scotthulsey8763 nah the crews in the gulf war were very poorly trained

[@joefreeman2799]

Thank you for a very factual and objective e comparison. Without a lot of loud music and jingoistic hype. I know that the last variants of the M60 remained in service for a long time in smaller Western aligned nations and I believe the Israelis used them in the 2973 war. I do not know how long T64 ta is remained in ser ice in Warsaw Pact and USSR alignednations however. If you see this post could you inform me on this? Thank you.

[@fumundacheese8256]

Im confused the T64 didn’t have the 125mm until the A model, the first T64 had an 115mm main gun.

[@abultimatetanksimulator6605]

No

[@DavidC1]

even if full penetration is not archived the reality is that it will still do significant damage

[@jackozbloke5079]

I thought that the m60 was more or less a stop gap for the MBT-70 project but since it was cancelled the development of the Abrams came from that so the m60s service life was extended until the M1.

[@xaiber16]

Jack Ozbloke Actually, no. The M60 was a new tank design and not meant as a stopgap.

[@Sujamma_Enjoyer]

@@xaiber16 it was a stopgap design built until the Abrams could be made

[@princesofthepower3690]

@@Sujamma_Enjoyer It really wasn’t. It was merely a continuation of the M-48

[@Sujamma_Enjoyer]

@@princesofthepower3690 it was based off a pretty heavily modified m48 to be a stopgap design till abrams could be manufactured these 2 things can be true at the same time

[@kalinmalinov7464]

The Soviets have realised that their overall tank package - crew+tank is somewhat inferior to western analog and they tried to make a leap with T64. Most of his reliability issues were actually a crew issues. T64 did not copy with conscription army concept and it seal his fate.

[@gun_nerds]

tanks for watching

[@davewill4713]

Nice video! Can you make a video on the Merkava IV?

[@cursedcliff7562]

@Ali Türkmenoğlu well would you rather be in a Merkava or in a T-72?

[@anonymuz796]

Merkava IV vs T-90M "Breakthrough"

[@j.b.macadam6516]

I was stationed in West Germany from 1977-1979, as a Scout in an armored battalion. The M60A1 upgrade was the primary tank at that time. Although the T64B had better armor and a more powerful main gun, the M60A1 upgrade had better fire control, using a laser rangefinder, and a higher rate of fire, since the 105mm gun used a single piece round and was manually loaded. In addition, the Soviet Kobra ATGM was not a success, and was not used in later Soviet tank models. (much like the U.S. Shillelagh ATGM) The M60A1 also had a better gun depression angle, allowing it to fire effectively from a hull down position. In summary, these two tanks were just about equal, but there were many more M60A1's than there were T64B's.

[@Aaronreacher]

Didn't the T-64 also had laser range finder? The tank used it for their guided misiles.

[@j.b.macadam6516]

@@Aaronreacher Yes, it was one of the first Soviet tanks to be equipped with a laser rangefinder. Despite that, the Kobra ATGM was not a success.

[@zaccabral8251]

t-64 OP

[@combinedingredients2294]

nerf pls

[@mistapeper1283]

buff pls

[@Cragified]

M60 was not a stop gap for the M1, no clue where you pulled that BS from. M60 was intended to use a laminar armor as well like the T-64 but costs of production and repairing it meant it was left out for a RHA design. The T-72 was intended as a cheaper to produce tank then the T-64 as a wartime expedient only but ended up being put in production as the T-64 was too costly and difficult to produce. In their time period if I was attacking I'd prefer the T-64. If I was defending I'd prefer the M60 for very simple reasons. When you are the attacker you know when you are going to attack so you don't have to spend perhaps days in that cramped tank waiting, on the attack gun depression and hull down tactics are minimalized. Conversely when you are the defender you have to sit and wait ready for whenever the attack comes and I'd rather be in a roomy M60 with superior hull down capability to maintain my performance.

[@zhuravl-m2285]

>M60 was intended to use a laminar armor But it didn't, because they gave up on it. If the M60 wasn't a stopgap, then it was a very bad tank to consider it a long-term MBT

[@richardmartin3243]

You figured that would do a cage armor but double up on it about five six inches in between each one

[@tedgarrett9437]

I want to ask a question,, is the Taiwanese tank as good as Chi/com tank? Tanks u

[@JBall-hd8bw]

The M60 series was sorely lacking in armor protection vs. Soviet tanks. The 70's was the golden time for a Soviet invasion (if they ever wanted to do it). The M60A3TTS did have the awesome TTS giving it an advantage at night, or in poor weather. The M1A1 is where the US finally achieved parity, or over-match of the Soviet equipment.

[@just_one_opinion]

high explosive plastic? what is that?

[@a.m.armstrong8354]

The 105mm L7 gun used squash head rounds. I think this was what was meant.

[@doggy4721]

Oh yes,finally some Soviet equipment which isn't all abt production cost and ease of use

[@Sgtdoc]

Nice job man.

[@ricardoricardoricardoricardo]

The M60 shoud be compared with the T-62, the T-64 is way out of it's league.

[@carkawalakhatulistiwa]

In 1970 m 60 b3 vs t72

[@luka5208]

What was added at 4:39 minutes?

[@ВячеславЧашурин]

спасибо за информацию) интересно насколько точно эти танки смоделированы в тундре)

[@markterrell6902]

Great video. However, specs are not the only consideration to look at when comparing which was better. Other factors are far more important. Such as: reliability and availability of spare parts, fuel and ammo and field services to support these. Air support and artillery are another key factor. Maybe the biggest factor is training. In all these areas the M60 is by far superior with the possible exception of ammo and artillery availability.

[@salt_97]

And you know this because?

[@markterrell6902]

Moe Ali Jaber I was stationed in Germany in the 2nd Armored Division. Not only did we train with our own equipment, we also trained with captured Russia equipment. Learning and understanding the opposing force was part of the job.

[@a.m.armstrong8354]

@@markterrell6902 When did you capture Russian equipment?

[@markterrell6902]

@@a.m.armstrong8354 my unit did not capture the equipment. The Army obtained and maintained them for training purposes. My guess would be that they were obtained in the middle east.

[@a.m.armstrong8354]

@@markterrell6902 Exactly what I thought. 'Monkey models'. Nothing Russia exports is anything like what it uses, unless the client state modifies it using Western or former WP upgrades.

[@KrokLP]

What's the background song?

[@Senbonzakura776]

Great video

[@hellman9655]

M60A3 TTS , its entire fire control system was extremely advanced for the late 70's. From defensive positions, I think it would have been quite a challenge for any Russian tank...until it went nuclear and Germany became a giant Hiroshima

[@a.m.armstrong8354]

It wouldn't stand a chance against a T64 in any position.

[@true2the_322]

Didn't the T80 come out around the same time the M1A1 came out? The M1 was more to go against the T64B

[@comradeskellington6582]

Law Abiding Citizen Original T-80 came out in 1976, so 3 years before the original production M1 Abrams. That said, for all intents and purposes, T-80 was merely a T-64A with a gas turbine engine instead of a Diesel engine, and as such, the only real difference would have been in mobility compared to contemporary T-64s. M1A1 wouldn’t come out until the mid to late 80’s, which is around the same time that T-64BV and T-80BV were being introduced.

[@true2the_322]

Comrade Skellington Yes you are right lol. From what I understood from reading about the Abrams it was when the US found out about the BVs armor that made them decide the M256 was needed.

[@a.m.armstrong8354]

@@comradeskellington6582 T80 had completely different suspension, road wheels and fcs. It was more advanced than the T64.

[@imwatchingthisvideo7023]

Hey RedEffect, can you make a video detailing the difference between a weapon that has been copied and a weapon that simply incorporates similar design elements? I've seen comments such as "this is a copy of that" or "this country can't innovate so they have to steal". These comments are everywhere.

[@RedEffectChannel]

That is impossible to make, sometimes what people call copies is just something that just looks similar, but sometimes it is completely justified to call something a copy, some manufacturers really do copy stuff, some don't, and those who do don't do it all the time, in order to do a video like that I would have to go through each thing people call a copy, but that would take forever

[@imwatchingthisvideo7023]

Thanks man.

[@jaykilbourne1110]

You could do a series of videos, each one looking at a different claim.

[@juliusdream2683]

Do you live in Russia or did you come to the U.S. well I enjoy the videos. So keep up the good work hopefully when I have less bills or a raise I will try to help you on patreon

[@newcolossus2699]

T 64 IS BEST THAN M60

[@leohedrick1624]

T64 is the clear the winner

[@ashcarrier6606]

It pays to recall that M60 was meant to be a defense tank in Europe, and it's height and gun depression allowed it to fight "hull down". With most of tank behind the crest of a hill, etc. Russian tanks, built for attack, could not fire downwards from a reverse slope. They did not have the gun depression. I recall reading that in the Yom Kippur War Russian models had to expose themselves on the forward slope to shoot. So not everything is about just gun, armor, and mobility.

[@tedgarrett9437]

Look up Yum Kippur war..there was t62 and m60 tanks...?

[@shubidubi2821]

In the Yom Kippur war, the Arab countries were using mostly T55s and T62s. Israel used Centurions in the Syrian front and M48/M60/Centurions and even some modified T55s in the Egyptian front

[@johnknapp952]

Better comparison: which tank would you rather have to sit in for days on end, the SUV sized M60 or Yugo sized (and comfort) T-any russian tank!

[@uroskostic5177]

Yugo sized T64/72 at the time would give you better survivability that M60s regardless of comfort. beside having thicker armor, T64 /72 were lower in silouette

[@cursedcliff7562]

Kako smees da kazes da jugo nije udoban, u sedistu jugoa je usivena dusa titoa! Poslacemo te na goli otok za ove lazi!

[@airborneranger-ret]

The M60A1 Rise Passive had better crew efficiency - something I do not see addressed here. T-64 was pretty cramped.

[@Predator20357]

The Russians had to make a crew size limit for their tanks, I presume because how small they are

[@sergeontheloose]

@@Predator20357 It's a common myth. I don't know who invented it. Ukraine uses its T-64s to fight off Russia and its backed collaborators and the Ukrainian tankers I saw are not small.

[@Predator20357]

sergeontheloose Alright, I was talking about Russia though

[@airborneranger-ret]

@@sergeontheloose Pedator is correct. Russian tank crewman were 5."5" or less.

[@sergeontheloose]

@@airborneranger-ret It's crazy, modern men are rarely this small these days. This is the size of a "petite woman". And T-64 are extensively used on the battlefield in east Ukraine today. I am 6.4 and it felt cramped for me, but for a man of 5.10-5.11 it will be totally ok. It's not like this tank was invented for monkey midgets to operate.

[@xaiber16]

Actually, the turret of the M60A1 is pretty strong. It has at minimum 330 mm LOS on the front and, for the mantlet, 548 mm LOS. It would make the M60A1 shrug off rounds from the T-64.

[@nahyanrajee198]

Umm you're wrong

[@nahyanrajee198]

The mantlet is around 157 mm of RHA

[@moonlitrn1]

How did the 64 stand up in combat?

[@19Koty96]

The only real assesment can be the use of T-72 Ural in Iran-Iraq war, where it was a formidable tank, but deployed in too small numbers. Far lower than the concentration in Europe was.

[@sneakybuddy8084]

Hello please tell me what is that song in back :)))

[@christopherli135]

Compare the Chieftain to the T-64

[@zhuravl-m2285]

T-64 would win just as hard. Even the Obj. 432 would clearly win, and the T-64A wouldn't even be a question