Jump to content


Tank Mayhem - M60 Patton


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
45 replies to this topic

Poll: M60 Patton - Should It Be Added In-Game? (97 members have cast votes)

As A Tier

  1. Seven (2 votes [2.06%])

    Percentage of vote: 2.06%

  2. Eight (3 votes [3.09%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.09%

  3. Nine (4 votes [4.12%])

    Percentage of vote: 4.12%

  4. Ten (83 votes [85.57%])

    Percentage of vote: 85.57%

  5. Premium (5 votes [5.15%])

    Percentage of vote: 5.15%

Vote Hide poll

Thenoob1234 #1 Posted Apr 28 2012 - 15:35

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 778
  • Member since:
    12-04-2011
The M60 Patton was a first generation MBT that first saw trials in 1957. It was designed to counter rumors of a supposed Russian tank armed with a 115mm gun. The M60 series tank succeeded the M47 and M48 Series. The improved design provided an increased operational range and mobility, required less refuelling and servicing, and incorporated an improved main armament. A Continental AV1790-2 V-12 750 hp. air cooled diesel engine powered the vehicle. Power is transmitted to a final drive through a CD-850-6 cross drive transmission, a combined transmission, differential, steering, and braking unit. It had a maximum speed of 30 mph and maximum range of 350 miles. The hull of this vehicle is a one piece steel casting and is divided into two compartments, the crew in the front, and the engine at the rear with an internal fuel capacity of 1420ltr or 357US gallons.

The M60 Patton main battle tank is now even phased out of US Reserve and National Guard units, the last to leave in 1997. It served as the primary US main battle tank for three decades prior to the introduction of the M1. Derived from the M48 Patton series, the M60 was fitted with a M 68 105mm main gun and manned by a four-man crew. Criticized for its high profile and limited cross-country mobility, this durable tank proved reliable and underwent many updates over its service life. Rarely has one vehicle type served as the main battle tank for as long as the venerable M60. The interior layout, based on the design of the M26/46/47/M48, provided ample room for updates and improvements, extending the vehicle's service life for over four decades.

In the early 1950s, reports from British intelligence indicated the Soviets had developed a new heavily armored medium tank, the T-54. This new tank was armed with a 100mm gun, superior to the American M48 medium tank, which used an old 90mm main weapon developed in WWII. In response, the US developed a strategy to bring the M48 up a level to compete with the new Soviet tank -- the M60. Initially produced in 1959 and planned as a stop gap solution, over 15,000 M60s were built by Chrysler and first saw service in 1961. Production of new vehicles ended in 1983, older models were converted to the M60A3 variant ending production finally in 1990. The M60 and M60A1 tanks saw action with the Israeli forces during the Yom Kippur War in both the Sinai and the Golan Heights.

Besides its main gun, the M60 series tanks are equipped with a 7.62mm M73 (or later M219) coaxial machine gun and 12.7mm M85 gun enclosed in the commander’s M19 turret. The first M-60s retained a turret similar to the M-48, but had a revised hull with better ballistic protection. The M60 tank hull was designed with a unique rounded boat shape bottom but a pointed nose section. It was made from five cast pieces that combine to provide excellent ballistic protection for the four crew and equipment packed inside.

The army ordered the M60 into production in 1959 and the first M60s entered service with U.S. Army units during the fall of 1960. Most of the initial production vehicles were sent to Europe to offset the Russian T-54, then coming into widespread service with Warsaw pact armies. The first 300 vehicles were not even equipped with the M85 machine gun inside the CWS but had a cradle mount welded to the right side of the CWS with an external .50 cal M2 mounted. These were later retrofitted once the M85 became available. The first upgrades included the replacement of the Commanders’ periscope with the M36E1 periscopic sight with IR night vision capabilities. While it was an improvement over the M48, especially in armament (having a 105 mm gun, a much roomier M19 Commander Cupola and a diesel engine), the M60 was regarded as somewhat of a stop gap measure and quickly followed by the next version A1.

As such, we have a very viable contender for a new tier 8-9 tank. Having nearly 155mm of armor on the front, it used Rolled Homogenous steel. As such, the armor should be used in-game with stats of about 170mm on the front, 150mm on the sides, and 150mm of armor on the back. As for the turret, it would have 200mm on the front, 190mm on the side, and 170mm on the back. Because it was developed and trialed in late 1959, it would be just able to fit into the game as a viable Heavy (There is no MBT classification in-game). However, despite it's good armor, it has certain prominent weak spots. The most glaring weakpoint would be the underpowered 105mm gun. The gun had massive penetration values, it would be much smaller caliber than anything else in tier 8 (excluding KV-5). However, this might be balanced out by it's large use of HEAT rounds instead of AP rounds; it would be far more deadly, because it both penetrates and explodes.

If you like this idea, comment. If you don't, don't comment.

Legiondude #2 Posted Apr 28 2012 - 15:42

    Major

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 16,347
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011
Why the crap are tier 7 and 8 options?

Mr_Peabody #3 Posted Apr 28 2012 - 15:49

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 4,829
  • Member since:
    07-18-2010

View PostThenoob1234, on Apr 28 2012 - 15:35, said:

...
If you like this idea, comment. If you don't, don't comment.

How about this instead... I don't like it but I'll still comment anyway? Does that work for you? I know this is your private server and all, so dissenting opinions have no place, but today I'm feeling disrespectful to your legitimate authority...

Your idea is terrible. The precursor to the M60 is in-game as a tier 9 medium, so the idea of this tank being anything other than a tier 10 is ludicrous, not to mention the fact that this tank has no place in this game at all.

Sorry to disagree with you, but your idea is bad and you should feel bad.

Mankoi #4 Posted Apr 28 2012 - 15:49

    Captain

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 1,030
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011
Its appropriate tier should be 11 or 12 .

If we had this bucket we should then have t-62 , t-72 , amx30 , Leopard1 ........etc.

My dream is to drive a Leopard 2A6....... :Smile_great::Smile-izmena:

Legiondude #5 Posted Apr 28 2012 - 15:51

    Major

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 16,347
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011
Only way I could see it happening is if Wargaming added tier 10 mediums and tank destroyers, which they said was a slim possibility. And even then it would have to be nerfed

Thenoob1234 #6 Posted Apr 28 2012 - 16:09

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 778
  • Member since:
    12-04-2011

View PostMr_Peabody, on Apr 28 2012 - 15:49, said:

How about this instead... I don't like it but I'll still comment anyway? Does that work for you? I know this is your private server and all, so dissenting opinions have no place, but today I'm feeling disrespectful to your legitimate authority...

Your idea is terrible. The precursor to the M60 is in-game as a tier 9 medium, so the idea of this tank being anything other than a tier 10 is ludicrous, not to mention the fact that this tank has no place in this game at all.

Sorry to disagree with you, but your idea is bad and you should feel bad.

I'm sorry that you don't agree with me... And if I have offended you, I meant not to. I did not mean to sound very bossy and controlling... I just wanted to have constructive criticism. Yeah, you have criticism, but no the constructivism... :P

Noble #7 Posted Apr 28 2012 - 18:01

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 464
  • Member since:
    04-30-2011
No doubt the russians will get the T-62 and we'll most likely get the M47...we honestly need the M60.  :Smile-hiding: Plus, the L7 105mm (M68) made all soviet armor obsolete in its introduction.  :Smile-izmena:

Mr_Peabody #8 Posted Apr 28 2012 - 18:54

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 4,829
  • Member since:
    07-18-2010

View PostThenoob1234, on Apr 28 2012 - 16:09, said:

I'm sorry that you don't agree with me... And if I have offended you, I meant not to. I did not mean to sound very bossy and controlling... I just wanted to have constructive criticism. Yeah, you have criticism, but no the constructivism... :P

You didn't offend me, your idea was simply so without merit that it doesn't need a counter argument. It is like if you said "what if we let cats be US senators?" The idea was so dumb that it needed no reply...

The_Chieftain #9 Posted Apr 28 2012 - 19:31

    Military Specialist

  • Military Specialist
  • 0 battles
  • 7,087
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011
Guys, forget about M60. Even in the long-range knock-about discussions in Minsk it isn't under consideration.

shdowhunt60 #10 Posted Apr 28 2012 - 22:47

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 176
  • Member since:
    12-23-2011
Not only is that post ridicuous, its also wrong. The M60 front was 155mm thick and sloped 60 from the vertical, and the side armor is the same as it was on the M26/M46. But we know the US mediums will never have their RL advantage of well-protected fronts.  The devs already rejected the M48 as a tier 9.

VirgilHilts #11 Posted Apr 28 2012 - 23:34

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 3,416
  • Member since:
    07-31-2010

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Apr 28 2012 - 19:31, said:

Guys, forget about M60. Even in the long-range knock-about discussions in Minsk it isn't under consideration.


It should be. It is the only viable and acceptable candidate for the supposedly possible tier X mediums.

Of course, I would not expect anything different from Minsk.

By the way, OP, the M60 is not a "main battle tank". If it were, then the M47 and M48 would be as well. Especially considering the M60 was prototyped on the M48 hull/chassis, as a replacement for the M48 when it was judged to be completely outclassed by the upgunned T-54 in 1956.

Towerrat #12 Posted Apr 28 2012 - 23:43

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 102
  • Member since:
    12-11-2010
I could never forget about the M60, I was run over by one of them during Basic Training!

Noble #13 Posted Apr 29 2012 - 00:36

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 464
  • Member since:
    04-30-2011

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Apr 28 2012 - 19:31, said:

Guys, forget about M60. Even in the long-range knock-about discussions in Minsk it isn't under consideration.
Can you at least say it isnt the M47...? and at least hopefully the M48

KilljoyCutter #14 Posted Apr 29 2012 - 00:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 16,249
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011
Wasn't there a "NO" option on that poll originally?  

I could have sworn I voted NO.

Thenoob1234 #15 Posted Apr 29 2012 - 02:07

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 778
  • Member since:
    12-04-2011
If you don't want to vote, don't vote. It's the same as saying "no". Just leave a comment.

VirgilHilts #16 Posted Apr 29 2012 - 02:56

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 3,416
  • Member since:
    07-31-2010

View PostThenoob1234, on Apr 29 2012 - 02:07, said:

If you don't want to vote, don't vote. It's the same as saying "no". Just leave a comment.

:facepalmic:

Really? Forcing the results of a poll negates the value of the poll. Seriously.

SocialFlaws #17 Posted Apr 30 2012 - 15:14

    Captain

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 1,986
  • Member since:
    04-02-2011

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Apr 28 2012 - 19:31, said:

Guys, forget about M60. Even in the long-range knock-about discussions in Minsk it isn't under consideration.
Have the M48 or any of the later T-series heavies with autoloaders been thought about?

shdowhunt60 #18 Posted Apr 30 2012 - 15:20

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 176
  • Member since:
    12-23-2011
You mean an American medium with good frontal armor? You bet not. Why else do we have the M46 Patton at both tier 8 and 9? We'll probably get the M47 at tier 10 with the way this is panning out. Same bloody tank for 3 tiers, its the T29 series all over again.

DerViktim #19 Posted Apr 30 2012 - 15:51

    Major

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 3,013
  • Member since:
    10-02-2011
IF, and that's a big IF, we see T10 mediums US will probably get the M48 Patton, the Russians will get a T55, and heavens knows what the German and French tank trees will get. If anything, the M48 has lots of potential to make it into the game given the wide range of variants and nations it saw service with and at a minimum M48 had a new hull and turret design. I'm thinking that there is a bunch of potential there.

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/M48_Patton

VirgilHilts #20 Posted Apr 30 2012 - 16:04

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 3,416
  • Member since:
    07-31-2010

View PostDerViktim, on Apr 30 2012 - 15:51, said:

IF, and that's a big IF, we see T10 mediums US will probably get the M48 Patton, the Russians will get a T55, and heavens knows what the German and French tank trees will get. If anything, the M48 has lots of potential to make it into the game given the wide range of variants and nations it saw service with and the fact that at a minimum it was a complete redesign visually. I'm thinking that there is a bunch of potential there.

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/M48_Patton

Use something other than "wiki", it's a rotten source. Further, the M48 wasn't really such a complete redesign, and it was considered to be obsolete in 1954/1956, if not before. Here's http://www.globalsec...26-pershing.htm a better source for reading on the Patton series online, since the Hunnicutt books were taken down.