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

**Weps** · 14 Sep 05,, 19:51

Should have the Army really gotten rid of the M60A3 TTS?

It was a revolutionary peice of armor. First U.S. tank to have Thermal Imaging devices and many other technological advancements. Horzontial Stablization, weather and windage sensors, laser rangefinder, hybrid solid-state ballistic computer, improved fire control system, State of the art NBC system.

Quote:
The Tank Thermal Sight was a significant advance, and tankers who have operated a3s and M1a1s almost universally state that the TTS on the M-60a3 was the best thermal imager ever fielded. It was not used on the M1 series due to cost and its large size.

Should that Army really have gotten rid of the M60A3 TTS tank or kept in it's arsenal for use as a medium or light tank?

Fuel wound not be a problem. The M1A1 has a multi-fuel turbine engine capable of burning JP-8, gasoline, and diesel. While the M60A3 has a diesel engine, it runs a bit better in desert conditions.

Ammo is not a problem either. 105mm ammo is still made by the U.S., or they could have upgunned the M60 to 120mm.

Armor is not a problem. It's current rolled armor with the Blazer Reactive armor would be enough to handle RPG's and other HEAT warhead ATGM's.

Crews would not be hard to train. Most current U.S. Army Master Gunner's are trained on the M60A3 TTS platform.

Updating the ballistic computers, FCS and a few other items and you have a competent MBT.

**dalem** · 14 Sep 05,, 21:40

Speaking as a layman, why the heck do we need more MBTs? Who are we going to need to use them against?

Now, taking old M60s and putting a simple 105mm howitzer in the turret for use as infantry support assault guns, I'd be all for.

-dale

**leib10** · 14 Sep 05,, 23:57

We have enough Abrams already. However, as dalem said, using them in the "assault gun" role might be prudent.

**Weps** · 15 Sep 05,, 00:29

Originally Posted by leibstandarte10

We have enough Abrams already. However, as dalem said, using them in the "assault gun" role might be prudent.

True. We have 5000 M1's between the Army and USMC. Forget the 105mm use the 165mm demo gun like on the M278 CEV.

I just don't understand why the Army got rid of such a superb tank, plus the M1 doesn't do to well in MOUT's.

**Wraith601** · 15 Sep 05,, 07:22

Originally Posted by Weps

True. We have 5000 M1's between the Army and USMC. Forget the 105mm use the 165mm demo gun like on the M278 CEV.

I just don't understand why the Army got rid of such a superb tank, plus the M1 doesn't do to well in MOUT's.

The Iraqis tasked with defending Baghdad might not agree with you.

**Bill** · 15 Sep 05,, 16:05

The A3TTS was an excellent tank but for it's conventional RHA armor.

Having looked through both the TIS of the M-1 and the TTS of the M-60A3, i can verify that the TTS unit is a much better sight, with much greater resolution.

**Weps** · 15 Sep 05,, 20:27

I have only had the honor of seeing through the M1's TIS, but from talking with my father and uncle who have both served on the A3 TTS. They definatly agree the A3 TTS is still a superb paltform and has an excellent TIS.

**Wraith601** · 16 Sep 05,, 05:39

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

The A3TTS was an excellent tank but for it's conventional RHA armor.

Having looked through both the TIS of the M-1 and the TTS of the M-60A3, i can verify that the TTS unit is a much better sight, with much greater resolution.

Couldn't this sight be fitted to an Abrams?

**Bluesman** · 16 Sep 05,, 07:37

Originally Posted by Wraith601

Couldn't this sight be fitted to an Abrams?

I would think the fire control system - sight, computer, stabilizer, range finder - would have to be re-done, too, because everything is integrated. Not practical (as a guess).

**Bill** · 16 Sep 05,, 08:27

The M-1A2 has an improved thermal sight IIRC, so if my memory serves me, it no longer uses the TIS of the earlier Abrams models.

**Weps** · 16 Sep 05,, 10:11

Originally Posted by Bluesman

I would think the fire control system - sight, computer, stabilizer, range finder - would have to be re-done, too, because everything is integrated. Not practical (as a guess).

Everything one the M1A2 is intergrated.

**Bluesman** · 16 Sep 05,, 10:37

Originally Posted by Weps

Everything one the M1A2 is intergrated.

Right. Which is why the 'modular' approach - like the suggestion to add in the sight - isn't practical. Correct?

**Shek** · 16 Sep 05,, 11:56

Originally Posted by Weps

True. We have 5000 M1's between the Army and USMC. Forget the 105mm use the 165mm demo gun like on the M278 CEV.

I just don't understand why the Army got rid of such a superb tank, plus the M1 doesn't do to well in MOUT's.

The M1A2 isn't optimized for MOUT like the Merkava, but it has fared well in MOUT. I don't know much about the M60 series - how would it function better in a MOUT scenario?

**Bill** · 16 Sep 05,, 18:15

"how would it function better in a MOUT scenario?""

The commanders coupola weapon is completely enclosed in armor.

That's a nice feature for MOUT ops.

**Shek** · 16 Sep 05,, 20:03

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

"how would it function better in a MOUT scenario?""

The commanders coupola weapon is completely enclosed in armor.

That's a nice feature for MOUT ops.

Agreed. Is it spherical protection (i.e. protected from above)?