Jump to content


M60A1 & 2nd American Medium Branch Campaign HQ (NA)


  • Please log in to reply
245 replies to this topic

Xx1Tommy1xX #241 Posted Mar 09 2017 - 22:01

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 13149 battles
  • 820
  • [-XBK-] -XBK-
  • Member since:
    06-13-2011
Well I think they are actually going to rebalance/reshuffle vehicles now. They started with the German HT and now the Russian IS-4 will be place in tier 9 again and the ST-1 will be tier 10.  If this new dev team actually mean business then the US line will not be far off. Still have been a long time waiting.

CK16 #242 Posted Apr 11 2017 - 18:22

    Captain

  • Players
  • 9366 battles
  • 1,868
  • Member since:
    02-26-2011
Bump, keep spreading the word, educate the plebs!

STEELEAGLE #243 Posted Jun 05 2017 - 19:44

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 21907 battles
  • 42
  • [MUG-W] MUG-W
  • Member since:
    03-08-2011

M60A1 a Medium Tank???

 

Well, I have to disagree.  M60A1 is an MBT.

 

Ok, I been playing this game his Beta.  I taken two breaks from playing this game, mainly because of all the frustrations in the game.  Why is that.  I use to be a real Tanker. And I normally don't get on these boards.  I just play the game for my own piece of mind.

 

US Army

Sept 1987 to Oct 1990 I was on M60A3TTS Series Tank

Oct 1990 to Sept 1991 IPM1/M1A1 Series Tank

 

Ohio Army National Guard

Dec 1993 to Dec 1998: M1A1

 

First of all I want to Salute CK 16 for his efforts , and I hope you are successful in getting your wish, it makes sense considering they have the T62 series Tank, but what drives me up a wall is they only give it a 100MM Tank Cannon when wheat it really has always carried was the 115 mm U-5TS (2A20) smoothbore gun.  Deep down it a piece of craptank and a piece of crapgun with a max effective ranges of 1200 meters, where the M68A1 have a max effective ranges well over 3000 meter with a 90% hit and kill of any known Russian Tank to include the the T64/T72/T80/T90 series.  I will get into that later.

 

First I want to clear up somethings dealing with the Whole of the Patton Series to include the M60 Patton 4.  I read the "Red, White, Black and Blue: series of Articles - The Contenders" by CK 16 and I want to clear up somethings:

 

Lets understand, the M60A3TTS is the finally tank of that series that starts with the M26.  TTS means; Tank Thermal Sights

 

This statement: The first M60A1’s had no advanced ballistic computer, no gun stabilizer, no laser range finder, no smoothbore weaponry, and no composite armor,

 

Ok first of all, the M60A1 did have a ballistic computer that was tied in with it Ranging system.  If you look on either side of the M60's turret you will see to a pair of what look like Bubbles.  Those are the housings for the Stereoscopic sights.  The TC would bring together to Ghost Images that would give the ranges.  Once the TC was sure that the range was correct, he would push a button that would feed the ranges into a Mechanical Ballistic Computer, which in turn would make via mechanic adjustments to Tank Gun.  This all change with the M60A1 Rise which added the Laser Range Finder.  Even the first M60A3 had the Stereoscopic sights. but a new Electronic Ballistic Computer, and a Wind Sensor. The M60A3 Rise added the Laser Range Finder.  

 

As for "No Gun Stabilizer"  Every US Tank since the M4 series with the 76MM Gun has had a Gyro-stabilizer system. As far back as World War 2 we have had them.  But they where very crude, easy to knock out of adjustment, and hard to operate. It was better to do what is call, "Short Halt and fire tactics" then try firing on the move.  By the time the M60 Series comes out, to include the M48A5, the Gyro-Stabilizer technology was far enough advance that it could be used.  But there is one problem. Each individual Tank had what you could call "Stab-Speed".  And the Tank's driver and Gunner had to know where about that stab speed was.  Normally between 10 and 13 MPH ( 16 to 21 KPH)  and over flat ground. This was do to that each tank had 1 or 2 Gyros feeding data to the Ballistic Computer. All the sudden you hit a bump, or a sigh rise in the ground and there when the Targeting solution. The Electronic Ballistic Computer correct for a lot of that, and when the M1 came out, the M1 uses 5 Gyro-Stabilizers feeding data to the Electronic Ballistic Computer. 

 

Gun:

 

The US 90 MM gun series where starts as an Anti-Aircraft gun, The US Army Ordinance Corp took a lesson from the Germans and said we have the gun, lets make into first, an "Anti-Tank Gun" then place into a Tank.  

 

The M3 was also adapted as the main gun for various armored vehicles, starting with the experimental T7 which was accepted as the 90 mm M3. The test firing of the M3 took place on an M10 tank destroyer in early 1943. The M3 gun was used on the M36 tank destroyer, and the T26 (later, M26) Pershing tank.[1] The M3 fired a M82 APC shot with a muzzle velocity of 2,650 feet per second.[1] However, both the muzzle velocity of the standard M3 gun and the quality of the steel used in the M82 APC shot were inferior to the KwK 43 L/71 88 mm main gun firing its standard APCBC shot used by German forces, with the result that the former's penetration fell far short of the standard projectile fired by the KwK 43 German 88 mm used on the Tiger II/King Tiger tank.[1] As a result, U.S. ordnance provided some T26/M26 tank crews with the 90 mm HVAP (high-velocity, armor-piercing) tungsten penetrator sub-caliber projectile with a muzzle velocity of 3,350 feet per second, or the T33 AP with a re-heat-treated projectile with ballistic windshield and a muzzle velocity of 2,800 feet per second.[1][2] The HVAP could compete with the KwK 43's penetration performance when firing std. APCBC, but tungsten ammunition was always in short supply, and the T33 which only just made it in service a month before the end of the war still fell far short of the KwK 43's performance. ( As per the Wikipedia Article)

 

But to match the KwK 43 88mm L71 they came up with the The T15 90mm L/73 Anti Tank gun, which could penetrate 302MM at 1000 yards. that could go through King Tiger Mark 6 Frontal Armor no problem.   In fact there is a report  the only Super Pershing engaging a Tiger II and destroying it, I have seen it called a Myth, who knows.  Not for debate. But the US Army Ordinance Corp did test it against the KwK 43 and stated that the T15 was superior.  Why they never use it, I'll never know, this is your government at work. There were 500 Super Pershing made after the war and none left state side.   But I digress. 

 

From M3 you goto  T54 and then the M41 90MM Tank Guns. the reason for those upgrades in those tank guns are normally Breech block design and rifling. But also, and this is what they are not tell any of you is there.  Ammo Tech has advanced over the period of time.  Those guns did fire by the 1950's a Sabot type round that could destroy a T54/55 series at that time.  So why did we Goto the 105MM gun.  Simple, NATO wanted a Standardize Tank Round for all NATO Armies.  Hence, the L7 series was made, by Royal Ordnance. and it was cheaper to go with that gun then make your own.

 

See what I don't like about WOT tech research is that you can't research new shell types. If you look at the L7/M68A1 Just in the US inventories alone there are 4 Armor defeating sabot rounds, the M392 ( which is in the game) the M774, M833 Round and the M900 APFSDSDU-T Round. https://fas.org/man/...s/land/m900.htm

 

Give me a M48A5 or M60 in this game with M900 Rounds and I should be able to one shot Maus and E100.  But I do wish they would let you research shell tech for Terr 9 or higher.  This is why that Tank gun is so Deadly, at 3000 meter in real life.

 

As for smoothbore weaponry, and no composite armor, the big reason for a smoothbore tank gun is because of barrel wear.  Rifled Tank Guns wear out quicker.  when it comes to Composite Armor, it really meant to stop the ATGM's threat with their heat round warheads.  Of course the first tank to carry Composite Armor was the Chieftain Mk 5.  Which is Classify as an MBT.

 

The M60A1 Rise and up is also Classify as a MBT by both the US Army Ordinance Corp and by the US Army Armor Branch.  But CK16 if you can campaign to get the M60A1 as a new Terr 10 go for it, I am for it. Hell I want to see a newer version of WOT that would include MBTs.



Xx1Tommy1xX #244 Posted Jun 06 2017 - 00:06

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 13149 battles
  • 820
  • [-XBK-] -XBK-
  • Member since:
    06-13-2011
WG can't say: we won't implement MBT because we already got AMX 30B, STRV 103B, Leopard 1 and STB-1 as MT and TD(for balance and gaming reasons)

Plus I really don't know why they have taken so much on doing something with the US MT line.  Sure the M48A1 is good for pup matches but come on stop the premium spam and make more tech tree vehicles.

CSA_VA #245 Posted Sep 04 2017 - 01:37

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 42409 battles
  • 621
  • [7AD40] 7AD40
  • Member since:
    05-01-2011
Bump

Xx1Tommy1xX #246 Posted Sep 04 2017 - 15:34

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 13149 battles
  • 820
  • [-XBK-] -XBK-
  • Member since:
    06-13-2011
This needs life again




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users