• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

Russian M60?

The Russian answer to a M60 MG is;

"Argghhh! Niet! I'm hit!"
"Take this, you western imperialist rat,"
-aims AK47 assualt rifle-
DDDDDDRRRRT! Blam! Blam Blam! Blam Blam!!!
Booom!

I imagine that is how they would answer to an M60....

:lol:
 
The Russian counterpart to the M-60 light machine gun (or as they are called today Squad Automatic Weapon) has been the PK. The Soviets introduced the basic PK machine gun in 1964. They followed it with the PKS, PKT, PKB (1968), PKM (1971), and PKMS. Compared to the US M-60, the PK-series machine guns are easier to handle during firing, easier to care for, and lighter. They use a more powerful cartridge and have a slightly shorter effective range (1,000 meters versus 1,100 meters for the M-60). The PK and PKM once served as squad machine guns in BMP-equipped motorized rifle squads, but now the 5.45-mm light machine gun RPK-74 has that function. The vechicle-mounted PKT continues to be standard equipment on many armored fighting vechicles.
 
It depends whether you are talking about the M60 machine gun, or the M60 main battle tank.
In the case of the tank, "in tank-on-tank duels the T-72 can hold its own against the American M-60 series of tanks but is totally outclassed by the later model M-1 tanks" (James Blackwell, Thunder in the Desert, Bantam Books, 1991, p.42.)
So, the answer is the T-72 and subsequent T-80 and T-90 series.


In the case of the machine gun, you would be looking at something like an RPK or RPK-74 light machine gun, or the PK and PKS general purpose machine guns.

"The 7.62-mm general-purpose machine gun Pulemyot Kalashnikov (PK) is a gas-operated, belt-fed, sutained-fire weapon. The Soviets based its design on the Kalashnikov assault rifle. Notable differences from the assualt rifle are the gas cylinder below the barrel and the hollow-frame stock resembling that of the SVD sniper rifle. The PKM fires 7.62 x 54R rimmed cartridges using a metal nondisintergrating belt.


The basic PK model is bipod-mounted. It is fed by a 100-round belt carried in a box fastened to the right side of the receiver. It weighs 9 kilograms and is 1,161 millimeters long. It is constructed partly of stamped metal and partly of forged steel.

The PKS is a PK mounted on a lightweight (4.75-kg) tripod. It uses either a 200- or 250-round belt. The belt feeds from a box placed to the right of the weapon.

The PKT is the tank-mounted version of the PK. Late-model Soviet tanks, turreted APCs and ICVs, and amphibious scout cars mount it as a coaxial machine gun. It has a longer and heavier barrel than the PK. It also lacks the PK's stock, sights, bipod, and trigger mechanism. The PKT has a solenoid at the rear for remote-controlled firing, although it also has an emergency manual trigger.

The PKB is a variant of the PKT. It is intended for use as a pintle-mounted gun on APCs and SP guns. It differs from the PKT by having a butterfly trigger rather than a solenoid trigger and by having double space grips and front and rear sights. There may also be a PKMB, derived from the PKM rather than from the PK.

The PKM is an improved, lighter version (8.4 kilograms) of the PK, using stamped metal components instead of machined metal. Joinable 25-round sections of nondisintergrating metalic belts feed the bipod-mounted PKM. An assault magazine attached to the rails under the reciever can cary 100 cartridges belted in this way. Either 200- or 250-round belt boxes can also feed the PKM.

The tripod-mounted PKMS is a lightweight version of the PKS. It has the same characteristics as the PKM, from which it is derived.


Capabilities:
The effective range of the PK-series machine guns is 1,000 meters. The have a cyclic rate of fire of 650 rounds per minute and a practical rate of fire of 250 round per minute. Ammunition types include the following: ball, ball-tracer, armor-piercing incendiary, armor-piercing incendiary-tracer, and incendiary-ranging.

The PKM is currently organic to the machine gun platoon of a BMP-equipped MRC and to the machine gun/antitank platoon of a BTR-equipped MRC. it normally fires from its bipod mount but can also fit in vechicle firing ports.

The PKS and PKMS are also infantry weapons. Used as heavy machine guns, they provide long-rage area fire. Their tripod provides a stable mount for long-range ground fire. The tripod opens quickly to elevate the gun for antiaircraft fire. The machine gun has an effective range of 600 meters against slow-moving aircraft.


The PKT serves as a coaxial machine gun on most modern Soviet tanks, ICVs, and APCs. The PKB (PKBM) serves as a pintle-mounted gun on older armored vechilces such as the BRDM, BTR-50 and BTR-60.


Limitations:
The nondisintergrating belt can get in the way if the gunner must move the weapon during firing. Barrel changing is not as fast and effective as in the more recent Western machine guns. Althought designed by Kalasknikov, the weapon's moving parts are not interchangable with those of the AK-series weapons.


Remarks:
The Soviets introduced the basic PK machine gun in 1964. They followed it with the PKS, PKT, PKB (1968), PKM (1971), and PKMS. Compared to the US M-60, the PK-series machine guns are easier to handle during firing, easier to care for, and lighter. They use a more powerful cartridge and have a slightly shorter effective range (1,000 meters versus 1,100 meters for the M-60). The PK and PKM once served as squad machine guns in BMP-equipped motorized rifle squads, but now the 5.45-mm light machine gun RPK-74 has that function. The vechicle-mounted PKT continues to be standard equipment on many armored fighting vechicles."

(This is, as suggested by the references in the text, about the PK GPMG. It is taken from some old Janes notes I had lying about my hard disk)
 
Which one were you talking about? The tank or the machinge gun?
 
Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
It depends whether you are talking about the M60 machine gun, or the M60 main battle tank.
In the case of the tank, "in tank-on-tank duels the T-72 can hold its own against the American M-60 series of tanks but is totally outclassed by the later model M-1 tanks" (James Blackwell, Thunder in the Desert, Bantam Books, 1991, p.42.)
So, the answer is the T-72 and subsequent T-80 and T-90 series.

The T-72 appeared quite a lot later than M-60, in fact about 10 years later. The Russian tank which has been developed at the same time as the M-60 is the T-62 which is still in service with many armed forces around the world, but it is slightly less capable than the M-60.

The MBT which replaced T-62 in the late 1960's was actually the T-64, and has been only produced for the Soviet Army, while the less-capable T-72 (which appeared later) was mainly designed for export and to complement the T-64 as a cheaper, mass-production tank. So really, I think the T-64 is Russia's answer to the M-60 tank.

T-80 and T-90 series have appeared as an answer to American M-1 tanks. T-80 is a development of the T-64, which appeared in 1984. The T-90, on the other hand, is derived from the T-72. Currently there major competition between T-80U and T-90, as to which tank will get the preference of the Russian Army (these tanks are produced by competing factories - T-90 is manufactured at the Uralvagonzavod in Nizhniy Tagil, in the Ural mountains, while T-80U is produced in Omsk, in Siberia).

Currently both of these factories are developing upgraded versions of their respective tanks. The T-90 upgrade is apparently the T-94, while the T-80U upgrade is the T-80UM2.

Russians claim that T-80U and T-90 are both slightly superior to Western tanks such as M1A2, Leopard 2 etc, while in the West it is regarded that these Russian tanks are inferior to the Western models, so probably the truth is somewhere in the middle.
 
Interesting. It depends whether you are talking about precise chronology, or performance. If it is chronology, then it is as you say.
In terms of performance, a T-72 can go up against an M-60, whereas the M-60 has the advantage over the T-62 and T-64 series quite decisively.

As to whether the T-80U and T-90 are a match for the M1-A2, the Leopard 2 et al, this is a matter where I defer to the professionals.
They are quite explicit on the matter: the Western tanks are better - better trained crews, and a better fighting machine.

Of course, one of our Israeli friends will come along and espouse the glories of the Merkava-3, which is a very good tank.

So, as you suggested, it is a subjective matter, in that people will always favour their own.

But, in terms of the most successful in large scale armoured combat, I would go for the M-1 series, as it was proven to be most effective and deadly in Desert Storm. It has been proven in ways that the T-80 and T-90 have not been.
 
New Chiorny Oriol (Black eagle) is the best, no doubt. Only compare the brutal 155mm cannon with a 120mm cannon (the biggest for any western tank)
 

Attachments

  • b_e_2.jpg
    b_e_2.jpg
    43.3 KB · Views: 159
Why doesn't it have those iron thingies that protect the upper part from being seperated by a missile?
 
Missile, shmissile :p
 
Originally posted by Simon Darkshade

But, in terms of the most successful in large scale armoured combat, I would go for the M-1 series, as it was proven to be most effective and deadly in Desert Storm. It has been proven in ways that the T-80 and T-90 have not been.

The T-80 and T-90 series haven't really seen large scale armoured combat, so it is difficult to tell. I don't think the T-90 has ever been in combat, but the T-80 was used a bit in Chechnya, and that's hardly the best place to test perfomance of a tank.
 
Originally posted by G-Man
Why doesn't it have those iron thingies that protect the upper part from being seperated by a missile?

I think this is only a prototype. The production version (if it is ever produced!) will probably look a bit different.
 
Originally posted by sgrig


The T-80 and T-90 series haven't really seen large scale armoured combat, so it is difficult to tell. I don't think the T-90 has ever been in combat, but the T-80 was used a bit in Chechnya, and that's hardly the best place to test perfomance of a tank.

Which was exactly what I was implying: they have not been tested in true armoured combat conditions. The M1A1 has, and came through with flying colours. Therefore, the M1A1 and M1A2 are better MBTs:) , in my view.
 
That prototype looks very vulnurable.
 
Top Bottom