Need someone to tell me about this tank

[Flying Pig]

Abrams fires canister shots from the 1700s.

So do combat shotguns - it's a simple idea, but a bloody good one.

 

[MobBoss]

All of the 48s are out of service now. So they could have a number for monuments. I think all, or nearly so, of the 60s are out of service as well, but there may be some with National Guard units still. You'd have to check.

They were being phased out when the first Gulf War happened. By 1995 or so, just about all the units, even National Guard ones, had transitioned over to the M1.

 

[Princeps]

So do combat shotguns - it's a simple idea, but a bloody good one.

But it is vastly inferior to HE FRAG and APERS beehive. In fact, given the machine guns on Abrams, it is also rather pointless.

The Abrams was EASILY the star of the show.

Hardly. If the US had fielded M60 tanks instead of Abrams, they probably could have had twice as many tanks on the field. The M60A3s and m113s were the most mobile combat vehicles and they took every bit as much fire from the enemy. Not a single M60A3 was lost in action. Abrams is fast over flat sandy terrain, but it consumes so much fuel and its engine is so fragile, that it is far less mobile than the M60.

 

[Agent327]

Looks like it's either an M-48 or M-60. Can't tell from the pic. They are much the same, as the 48 was an earlier version that was upgraded to the 60.

Yes, it´s much more fun to let someone else do your googling...

 

[Cutlass]

Yes, it´s much more fun to let someone else do your googling...

Sometimes you need a starting place to google from....

 

[MobBoss]

Hardly. If the US had fielded M60 tanks instead of Abrams, they probably could have had twice as many tanks on the field. The M60A3s and m113s were the most mobile combat vehicles and they took every bit as much fire from the enemy. Not a single M60A3 was lost in action. Abrams is fast over flat sandy terrain, but it consumes so much fuel and its engine is so fragile, that it is far less mobile than the M60.

In this ear of modern combat, i'd rather have half as many M1 Abrams than those M-60s any day. M113s sucked, their side armor couldnt even stop decent small arms fire.

And to say that the M1 is 'far less mobile' than the M60 is just simply incorrect.

And fwiw, your comment about an M60A3 not being lost in action is misleading. No M60A3s were lost because the marines were using M60A1s in the drive to retake Kuwait City and those lost one during that battle.

Dont get me wrong. I think the M60 was a great tank, but it is inferior to the M1 Abrams.

 

[cav scout]

It's a bit hard to distinguish the two from the OP photo (too much shadows), but the commander's hatch suggests that it is a M-48 tank. The turret profile gives it away though (more compact and more circular/rounded than the M60 turrets).

Looks like an M60 to me... try counting the return rollers.

 

[cav scout]

Much better tanks than the M1.

Ugh... not this again... Are you actually a tanker? I'm curious as to what experiences you are forming your opinions from.

(sorry for the double post)

 

[Bugfatty300]

The tank in the OP is an eyesore. Can't they put it in a better spot than just parking it next to the sign like a junk car lot?

 

[Perfection]

Tank is dead

 

[Glassfan]

Based on the L7 105mm gun, the high commander's copula and the straight-cut forward glacis, this tank appears to be a retired M-60.

The M-48 mostly had the 90mm gun, except for one variant, the M48A5 - and it's missing the disconnect "bulge" halfway down the rifle. The M-48 has a rounder turret and an angled forward glacis.

 

[Flying Pig]

But it is vastly inferior to HE FRAG and APERS beehive. In fact, given the machine guns on Abrams, it is also rather pointless.

Is it not also designed to clear blockages or for some use other than actually killing the enemy up close? I'm sure I've heard that somewhere.

 

[Princeps]

In this ear of modern combat, i'd rather have half as many M1 Abrams than those M-60s any day. M113s sucked, their side armor couldnt even stop decent small arms fire.

I'd rather modernize the M113 into an IFV and modernize the M60 tank into a true MBT. If the US had done this, they would have saved billions. This is not theoretical. Both M60 and M113 have been modernized by companies and middle-income armed forces into vehicles that perform exactly like Bradley and Abrams, even better, at far more affordable prices.

And to say that the M1 is 'far less mobile' than the M60 is just simply incorrect.

How so? It is faster over flat, hard terrain and it accelerates quickly. But this is largely irrelevant. Tactical speed is not a meaningful form of protection for an MBT, an ATGM travels many times faster than an Abrams and anyone who uses non-guided anti tank rocket launchers will simply add more lead as they aim. Of course, this is assuming Abrams is actually a fast tank: it isn't. Because of its massive weight of 72-75 tons it even has problems travelling on roads.

M1 operational range is 265 miles, which is less than an equivalent piston engine tank. This is despite the fact that Abrams has a twice the internal fuel capacity. M60 has an operational range of 300 miles, but with a smaller internal fuel tank. An M60 could be fitted with external fuel tanks to add range, just like T90, Challenger 2 and Leopard 2. Abrams can't be fitted with external fuel tanks because of its hot exhaust. Since the Abrams consumes so much fuel, it needs to drag with it an army of fuel trucks to keep it operational, which are vulnerable to the enemy since they're filled with volatile jet fuel.

Also, what is even more comical is that Abrams M1s maximum range is only possible if the tank is moving at high speeds. The turbine engine burns more fuel the slower it is moving.

 

[r16]

ı usually look at the front of the tank . If it is straight it is an M60 , if curved 48.

 

[CavLancer]

Much better tanks than the M1.

If you want to survive the modern battlefield don't stick your head up. The M-60 in all its variants has its head up. Way too high in the air, much too easy a target and exchanging rounds with a low and sleek T-72 with cold rolled curved armor its at a serious disadvantage. With height and without the computer system that ensures hits on the move the Soviets win over M-60s, period. The Abrams/Leopard redressed the conventional balance in favor of NATO. Before that it was on the Soviet side, absolutely.

I was there, I know WTH I'm talking about.

 

[danjuno]

What ever it is, it looks sad

I want to give it a hug.

 

[kochman]

This whole line of argument about the M60 being better than the M1 is about as supported in your statements as saying the horse drawn buggy is superior to a modern car...

I mean, it doesn't even need conventional fuel! So, it is more mobile.
It doesn't break down as often, this is good.
Etc...

It's kind of silly. There is, amongst the tanker community, some level of support for the M60, but that is mainly based on nostalgia... like how some people still swear by the F4 Phantom (airplane for those that don't know)... it doesn't make it true.

 

[danjuno]

 

[Mad Man]

sAD tANK SUX! No but seriously, where is that thing parked? It seems like something some hick would have sitting in front of a used car dealership or a gun shop.

 

[Cutlass]

I have a cousin who lives across the street from a small National Guard armory with a tank like that out front. She once threatened to put a billboard of GW Bush in front of it.