M60A3 TTS, Should have the Army gotten rid of it?

**Bill** · 18 Sep 05, 09:44

Weps somebody should probably point out to you that Shek commanded a Stryker company in Iraq.

**Shek** · 18 Sep 05, 13:27

Originally Posted by Weps

I'm sorry that I can't provide the link, the forum I read it am archived the thread the link was in. The Stryker is prone to roll over, going at it's top speed it flips quite easily. I'm not trying to bash the Stryker I a big fan of it, the IFV and ATGM variants anyway. I had hopes for the MGS. I don't know of any other vehicle that has seatbelts.

I would like the Army to have done it this way,

Heavy Tank: M1A1/A2

Light Tank: M60A3 TTS

IFV/CFV: M2A3/M3A3 BFV

Medium APC: M11A3 ACAV

LAV: Stryker/LAV III

But I don't make the desisions, so.......

lets agree to disagree.

Weps,

I seriously doubt that there has been a 7.62mm penetration - I've read the SBN site everyday since I got high speed last summer when I moved and have yet to come across anything that states a 7.62mm penetration. Also, no one I've spoken with has mentioned this, so that would cover the time period between my redeployment and getting on line. With the earlier issues with the subcontractor that produced the ceramic tiles, a penetration would be a serious issue and would have hit the MSM like a ton of bricks, and unlike most of the Stryker information that has generated controversy in the press, this one would have actually been a very valid story.

Here's information on the rollovers:

http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/l...-4288984c.html

BTW, I've been in a Stryker going 75mph while standing in the hatch and the Stryker has zero problems at high speed. If you'd like me to discuss more information on the Stryker rollovers listed in the article, I can about some of them.

I'm curious about having a "light" tank in the US inventory and what role the M60A3 TTS would play. Who would you equip with it? Why? IIRC, it is 60 tons, so you still run into pretty much the exact same deployability issues and mobility (road/bridge infrastructure) that you would with the M1 series.

**Weps** · 18 Sep 05, 19:58

Originally Posted by shek

Weps,

I seriously doubt that there has been a 7.62mm penetration - I've read the SBN site everyday since I got high speed last summer when I moved and have yet to come across anything that states a 7.62mm penetration. Also, no one I've spoken with has mentioned this, so that would cover the time period between my redeployment and getting on line. With the earlier issues with the subcontractor that produced the ceramic tiles, a penetration would be a serious issue and would have hit the MSM like a ton of bricks, and unlike most of the Stryker information that has generated controversy in the press, this one would have actually been a very valid story.

Here's information on the rollovers:

http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/l...-4288984c.html

BTW, I've been in a Stryker going 75mph while standing in the hatch and the Stryker has zero problems at high speed. If you'd like me to discuss more information on the Stryker rollovers listed in the article, I can about some of them.

I'm curious about having a "light" tank in the US inventory and what role the M60A3 TTS would play. Who would you equip with it? Why? IIRC, it is 60 tons, so you still run into pretty much the exact same deployability issues and mobility (road/bridge infrastructure) that you would with the M1 series.

Thank you very much. Most of my infomation is gained from globalsecurity.org, and lots of times their information is gained from other not-so-reliable sources.

I really look for the most reliable, most times I seek out designers, manfactuers and those who have served on a particular vehicle, but to no avail. Most of you guys hangout at modeling forums and stuff. I joined a modeling forum a few months back, to see if anyone had any idea on where to get XM1/M1 models. What I found out was that there where 5 guys that had served on the M1, a guy who had commanded an XM1 test bed, and a guy who has more info than ten globalsecurity.org's.

So yes please info me on all the infomation you know, and any updates. It's just really had trying to find an accurate and reliable source.

Now on the M60A3. I went to the Master Gunner Conference in Norfolk last year or the year before. They where discussing the Army's proponents and how instead of having a armor battalion stationed with an infantry division that the infantry division would have it's own armor.

Now I would place M60A3 TTS's in divisions like the 3rd and 29th, who are traditional infantry. But with the changing of combat and the Army rearanging proponents and adding armor, arty, and the such to each division.

Adding the M60A3 TTS, which is 10 tons light than the M1 and super charging it's 750HP engine giving the infantry an edge. I think the A3 is a bit more infantry-friendly. Now putting the A3 back into service wouldn't be too much. Leaving it's TIS, FCS, and LRF in and adding FBCB2/BFT, NBC overpressure system, and a few other odds and ends. Then we supercharge her engine or find a more suitable one, now this may seem expensive but comparing with the U.S. Military's latest shoping spree of the RAH-66, costing 14 billion (estimated).

Please forgive me if some of this is hard to understand or doesn't make sence, I'm use to Cold War, WWII tactics and strategy. I'm learning a whole new ball game.

**Shek** · 18 Sep 05, 22:00

Originally Posted by Weps

Thank you very much. Most of my infomation is gained from globalsecurity.org, and lots of times their information is gained from other not-so-reliable sources.

I really look for the most reliable, most times I seek out designers, manfactuers and those who have served on a particular vehicle, but to no avail. Most of you guys hangout at modeling forums and stuff. I joined a modeling forum a few months back, to see if anyone had any idea on where to get XM1/M1 models. What I found out was that there where 5 guys that had served on the M1, a guy who had commanded an XM1 test bed, and a guy who has more info than ten globalsecurity.org's.

So yes please info me on all the infomation you know, and any updates. It's just really had trying to find an accurate and reliable source.

Now on the M60A3. I went to the Master Gunner Conference in Norfolk last year or the year before. They where discussing the Army's proponents and how instead of having a armor battalion stationed with an infantry division that the infantry division would have it's own armor.

Now I would place M60A3 TTS's in divisions like the 3rd and 29th, who are traditional infantry. But with the changing of combat and the Army rearanging proponents and adding armor, arty, and the such to each division.

Adding the M60A3 TTS, which is 10 tons light than the M1 and super charging it's 750HP engine giving the infantry an edge. I think the A3 is a bit more infantry-friendly. Now putting the A3 back into service wouldn't be too much. Leaving it's TIS, FCS, and LRF in and adding FBCB2/BFT, NBC overpressure system, and a few other odds and ends. Then we supercharge her engine or find a more suitable one, now this may seem expensive but comparing with the U.S. Military's latest shoping spree of the RAH-66, costing 14 billion (estimated).

Please forgive me if some of this is hard to understand or doesn't make sence, I'm use to Cold War, WWII tactics and strategy. I'm learning a whole new ball game.

Weps,
The RAH-66 program was cancelled last year; I'm not sure how much money we dumped into the R&D, but it wasn't insignificant.

I'm not tracking with how the A3 is more infantry friendly. Does it have the capacity to carry and dismount a fire team like the Merkava? As Snipe pointed out a few messages back, ERA isn't infantry friendly. That's one reason why the slat armor can actually be a much better fit for the Stryker and M113 than ERA depending on the operating environment (for example, in Iraq, the RPG warheads are older technology, so the slat is doing just fine defeating it - against more modern RPG warheads, my guess is that you would see a difference between ERA and slat).

Finally, I couldn't gather from your initial paragraph whether you are abreast of the BUA reorganization that is significantly changing the organization of our combat brigades. You talk about adding arty, which is the direct opposite of what is happening now, so I don't know whether that is what you are proposing or whether you are just misunderstanding what is happening.

Let me know if you aren't up to speed on all this - there's a lot of good info from the different members on this board, and we've got some professional military members from India and Canada on the board, so they keep us Americans honest when it comes to evaluating equipment.

**Weps** · 19 Sep 05, 01:23

Originally Posted by shek

Weps,
The RAH-66 program was cancelled last year; I'm not sure how much money we dumped into the R&D, but it wasn't insignificant.

I'm not tracking with how the A3 is more infantry friendly. Does it have the capacity to carry and dismount a fire team like the Merkava? As Snipe pointed out a few messages back, ERA isn't infantry friendly. That's one reason why the slat armor can actually be a much better fit for the Stryker and M113 than ERA depending on the operating environment (for example, in Iraq, the RPG warheads are older technology, so the slat is doing just fine defeating it - against more modern RPG warheads, my guess is that you would see a difference between ERA and slat).

Finally, I couldn't gather from your initial paragraph whether you are abreast of the BUA reorganization that is significantly changing the organization of our combat brigades. You talk about adding arty, which is the direct opposite of what is happening now, so I don't know whether that is what you are proposing or whether you are just misunderstanding what is happening.

Let me know if you aren't up to speed on all this - there's a lot of good info from the different members on this board, and we've got some professional military members from India and Canada on the board, so they keep us Americans honest when it comes to evaluating equipment.

Yes, I agree. I meant the A3 wa a bit more infantry friendly by the heat of a turbine isn't blasting out of it.

Oh ok, I missed about an hour and half of the meeting.

Ya, I'm a little behind on the times, so if you would help update my knowledge.

**Bill** · 19 Sep 05, 08:56

"I'm not tracking with how the A3 is more infantry friendly. "
Well, you can hide behind a running M-60 without frying your nuts off. Can't exactly say that for an M-1. I can also see the bottom hatch of the 60 being an edge for CASEVAC in a pinch.

Beyond that though, the M-1 is just as good for joint ops as the M-60 is, and again, because it's so superior in most ways, as an overall package IMO the Abrams is just a much better fit.

I've worked side by side with both M-60A3TTS and IM-1s(My Bn's tank plt had A3TTS when i got there, and transitioned to IM-1s about a year after i was at permanent party), in both mounted and dismounted ops, as both BLUFOR and REDFOR, and from my perspective the M-1 is a far deadlier opponent(much harder to kill), and while not quite as useful a support asset as the Patton, the M-1 is still perfectly capable of close joint ops with friendly dismounts.

**Weps** · 19 Sep 05, 18:25

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

"I'm not tracking with how the A3 is more infantry friendly. "
Well, you can hide behind a running M-60 without frying your nuts off. Can't exactly say that for an M-1. I can also see the bottom hatch of the 60 being an edge for CASEVAC in a pinch.

Beyond that though, the M-1 is just as good for joint ops as the M-60 is, and again, because it's so superior in most ways, as an overall package IMO the Abrams is just a much better fit.

I've worked side by side with both M-60A3TTS and IM-1s(My Bn's tank plt had A3TTS when i got there, and transitioned to IM-1s about a year after i was at permanent party), in both mounted and dismounted ops, as both BLUFOR and REDFOR, and from my perspective the M-1 is a far deadlier opponent(much harder to kill), and while not quite as useful a support asset as the Patton, the M-1 is still perfectly capable of close joint ops with friendly dismounts.

I agree with that the M1 is very hard to kill and is far deadlier. My point was that the A3 tends to fit better on a street and that it is a better support tank than the M1.

If you look at the M1's whole design it was for armor battles. It was designed to fight long range, heavy tank battles against Soviet armor.

**Wraith601** · 20 Sep 05, 07:32

Originally Posted by Weps

I agree with that the M1 is very hard to kill and is far deadlier. My point was that the A3 tends to fit better on a street and that it is a better support tank than the M1.

If you look at the M1's whole design it was for armor battles. It was designed to fight long range, heavy tank battles against Soviet armor.

What do you think the M60 was designed to do?

**Weps** · 20 Sep 05, 23:39

Originally Posted by Wraith601

What do you think the M60 was designed to do?

The M60 was an improvment of the other Patton series tanks, it was called a MBT while it was a medium tank, like it's brother the M48. Their main mission being infantry support.

It was an improvment over the M48, if you look at the first M60's they are nothing more than modified M48 chassis and an M48 turret with an M19 coupla.

The M48A5 LP was armed with the same M68 105mm. The M60 had an improved engine, ballistic protection, better range and fuel economy.

From the M26 the Army tried to improve upon it's armor using existing systems and platforms with the fixation of Heavy Tank/Main Battle Tank, until the MBT-70 and M1.

The M1 was a tank ahead of it's time. It blew everything the Soviet's had out of the water,and the Gremans where trying to catch up.

**~~thesaint~~** · 21 Sep 05, 02:04

Originally Posted by Weps

The M1 was a tank ahead of it's time. It blew everything the Soviet's had out of the water...

For the sake of historical truth, the M1 was so ahead that they had to redesign it. When the tank was designed, at the end of the 70's, the US thought they could take out Soviet tanks using shaped charge rounds. Thus the M1 was fitted with a 105 mm rifled main gun, which was thought to be the last cry in tank guns.
As it turns out, the Soviets had developed reactive armour at around the same time, severely impairing the performance of the M1 (and of a bunch of infantry AT weapons). The US proceeded to modify the M1 and it took them five long years to come up with the M1A1, fitted with a 120 mm smoothbore gun (the Soviets had already chosen that path in the 60's). This resulted in 6+ extra tons of weight, decreased speed and range, larger silhouette.

**Weps** · 21 Sep 05, 10:56

Originally Posted by thesaint

For the sake of historical truth, the M1 was so ahead that they had to redesign it. When the tank was designed, at the end of the 70's, the US thought they could take out Soviet tanks using shaped charge rounds. Thus the M1 was fitted with a 105 mm rifled main gun, which was thought to be the last cry in tank guns.
As it turns out, the Soviets had developed reactive armour at around the same time, severely impairing the performance of the M1 (and of a bunch of infantry AT weapons). The US proceeded to modify the M1 and it took them five long years to come up with the M1A1, fitted with a 120 mm smoothbore gun (the Soviets had already chosen that path in the 60's). This resulted in 6+ extra tons of weight, decreased speed and range, larger silhouette.

No. The M1 was redesigned to the M1IP. The M1A1 never had depleted uranium until 86' and that was the M1A1HC/HA.

Also if I'm not mistaken the M103 had a 120mm maingun, for use against large Soviet armor and the MBT-70 U.S. model had a 152mm gun.

The M1 and M1A1HC are the same height, the M1A1 only weight's 3 more tons, and the speed is only 3 MPH lower and the range is only 10 miles less. The M1A1 does 45MPH governed, 60MPH without the governer, and 90MPH without it's turret.

The T-64, first Soviet tank with 125mm maingun came out in 66', it has 750HP, it's speed is 40MPH.

The T-55MV, first model to have reactive armor was built in 83'. The Soviets didn't start using ERA until 82'.

Whilst the M1 had it's flaws it was a tank ahead of it's time.

**troung** · 22 Sep 05, 03:19

Best one can get out of the M-60 frame. The IDF upgraded models can survive repeated hits from the range of AT-3s and RPG-7s. In Lebanon one (a Magach 7A) took 20 hits in the turret from AT-3s and the crew was intact and unwounded... an M-60A3 with Blazer would have not been able to take repeated hits from a massed volley like that...

**Bill** · 22 Sep 05, 04:56

Heh, don't even look like a Patton anymore.

**Weps** · 22 Sep 05, 07:54

Quite true troung. I read about an M48 the had 13 hits from RPG-4's in the battle of Hue and they didn't even leave a scratch, the crew was fine except for minor concussions. The crew was changed out and they finished the recon of the city.

**Wraith601** · 22 Sep 05, 07:55

Say what you will about Israel but they know armored warfare.

Thread: M60A3 TTS, Should have the Army gotten rid of it?

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Similar Threads

Serbia in WWI

Articles and links for the Military Professional

New Rules for New Enemies

Guerilla Warfare

Why don't people get banned for thread crapping?

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions