Jump to content


Anyone know how many m60 pattons are there in reserve?


This topic has been archived.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

area86 #1 Posted Nov 06 2011 - 05:33

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 4162 battles
  • 95
  • Member since:
    08-18-2011
ive heard from global security that there are 58 m60 Patton tanks in a pen in kansas and im wondering if there are anymore besides that. just curious about that :Smile-hiding: and also how many m103's are there in storage? would they stand a chance at surviving small arms and minor conflicts if somehow it was put into service again after being restored but not overhauled on electronics, lets say the mexican drug war or the libyan conflict that has ended

http://data3.primepo...m103_4_of_4.jpg


Posted Image

ZiggyDeath #2 Posted Nov 06 2011 - 05:49

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 2862 battles
  • 1,044
  • Member since:
    08-07-2010
Sufficient protection against small arms is already there, I assume you're referring to man-portable AT weapons.

In that case, it would be possible to equip such old vehicles with explosive-reactive armor; of course this means that it cannot be deployed in conjunction with infantry.

To equip said tanks with modular armor that would be RPG resistant would most likely need significant upgrades to make it combat ready. Said upgrades could increase the protection level to safeguard it against last generation MBT guns, such as the 105mm used on Strykers, but would not safeguard it against a modern gun.

area86 #3 Posted Nov 06 2011 - 05:53

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 4162 battles
  • 95
  • Member since:
    08-18-2011

View PostZiggyDeath, on Nov 06 2011 - 05:49, said:

Sufficient protection against small arms is already there, I assume you're referring to man-portable AT weapons.

In that case, it would be possible to equip such old vehicles with explosive-reactive armor; of course this means that it cannot be deployed in conjunction with infantry.

To equip said tanks with modular armor that would be RPG resistant would most likely need significant upgrades to make it combat ready. Said upgrades could increase the protection level to safeguard it against last generation MBT guns, such as the 105mm used on Strykers, but would not safeguard it against a modern gun.
that and 40mm grenades high caliber guns like .50 bmg and hand grenades, i know it sounds stupid but i still want to know... :mellow:

ZiggyDeath #4 Posted Nov 06 2011 - 06:07

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 2862 battles
  • 1,044
  • Member since:
    08-07-2010

View Postarea86, on Nov 06 2011 - 05:53, said:

that and 40mm grenades high caliber guns like .50 bmg and hand grenades, i know it sounds stupid but i still want to know... :mellow:
Without up armoring, the frontal aspect is already more than well protected against these threats.

If the enemy somehow managed to get the latest .50cal rounds or 40mm grenades, they may have a shot at the sides. There are third party modular armor upgrades, when used in conjunction with the current armor, would more than protect the M60 from the listed threats, at a minimal increase in weight.

The big ones to watch out for are RPGs and IEDs; the former would require some extensive add-on armor - potentially over-stressing the powertrain, the latter is unobtainable within reason.

Blackhorse_Three #5 Posted Nov 06 2011 - 06:16

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 1528 battles
  • 250
  • [2_11] 2_11
  • Member since:
    08-02-2011
There are no longer any M48, M60, or M103-series tanks in the US inventory, Private.

Like the M103, the only M48/M60 tanks left in the US are static displays in front of Post Gates, Army and Marine office buildings, National Guard armories, VFWs, American Legion posts, in the hands of private collectors and at the far-end of a few ordnance ranges. The M103 program had a relatively short life, and had ended by 1975, yielding to the equal capabilities of the M551 Sheridan and M60A2 "Starship" on lighter platforms.

Oddly enough, the USMC got all but a battalion's worth of M103s - about 80 of them went to the US Army. I say "oddly enough" because at a time when overseas transport capacity was inadequate for the task, the USMC took delivery of some 220 vehicles.

All of the (remaining) mission-capable M48s and M60s are/were export stock for US interests, but none of the M103s were ever exported.

One of existing M103 displays not listed on the Wikipedia page sits today in front of the National Guard armory at Dowagiac, Michigan. Been There, Joe!

Edit ... WARNING! ... The external link "M60A3 Variant Details" on the Wikipedia "M60 Tank" page leads to a  a nasty file-erasing extortion virus ... DO NOT CLICK ON THIS LINK.
As of 1500 hrs, 07 NOV 2011, Wikipedia and WOT admin have been advised of this virus. Wikipedia has identified the virus and advise that they will delete the link.


The_Chieftain #6 Posted Nov 07 2011 - 04:08

    Military Specialist

  • Military Specialist
  • 4709 battles
  • 7,095
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011
It wouldn't surprise me to see M60s in storage in some random base. There were two battalions' worth stored in Camp Roberts for quite a few years after they went out of service with the Guard in case some foreign nation wanted to buy (or get for free) them. (which, as I understand it is exactly where they went)

Theodore #7 Posted Nov 07 2011 - 10:00

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 884 battles
  • 485
  • Member since:
    12-05-2010
http://www.preserved...CategoryId=1870

blurr91 #8 Posted Nov 08 2011 - 01:51

    Major

  • Players
  • 12259 battles
  • 2,389
  • Member since:
    05-21-2011

View Postarea86, on Nov 06 2011 - 05:33, said:

ive heard from global security that there are 58 m60 Patton tanks in a pen in kansas and im wondering if there are anymore besides that. just curious about that :Smile-hiding: and also how many m103's are there in storage? would they stand a chance at surviving small arms and minor conflicts if somehow it was put into service again after being restored but not overhauled on electronics, lets say the mexican drug war or the libyan conflict that has ended

Why the fascination with the Mexican drug war?  The drug cartel do not possess weapons large enough to knock out an MBT, not from the front, at least.  They may have access to RPG that could disable an MBT from the side and rear.

Hand grenades and 40mm grenades are mainly for anti personnel use.  They cannot penetrate the armor of an MBT.  50BMG cannot penetrate any part of an MBT.

50BMG can penetrate the side of a BMP though.  Those things are only proof against 30cal AP rounds on the sides.  By 30cal I mean machinegun rounds, not the type coming out of an AK-47.

Dominatus #9 Posted Nov 08 2011 - 02:01

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9881 battles
  • 12,000
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    12-21-2010

View Postblurr91, on Nov 08 2011 - 01:51, said:

Why the fascination with the Mexican drug war?  The drug cartel do not possess weapons large enough to knock out an MBT, not from the front, at least.  They may have access to RPG that could disable an MBT from the side and rear.

Hand grenades and 40mm grenades are mainly for anti personnel use.  They cannot penetrate the armor of an MBT.  50BMG cannot penetrate any part of an MBT.

50BMG can penetrate the side of a BMP though.  Those things are only proof against 30cal AP rounds on the sides.  By 30cal I mean machinegun rounds, not the type coming out of an AK-47.

An AK-47's bullet isn't much different from that of a Soviet machinegun, since it's just a cut-down version of it. American battle rifles, sniper rifles, and machineguns generally use the same ammo as well.

blurr91 #10 Posted Nov 08 2011 - 03:34

    Major

  • Players
  • 12259 battles
  • 2,389
  • Member since:
    05-21-2011

View PostDominatus, on Nov 08 2011 - 02:01, said:

An AK-47's bullet isn't much different from that of a Soviet machinegun, since it's just a cut-down version of it. American battle rifles, sniper rifles, and machineguns generally use the same ammo as well.

There's a huge difference between a "machinegun" and a "squad automatic weapon" that uses intermediate rifle rounds.

GPMG use 7.62x51 NATO in the western armies, and 7.62x54R in the com bloc armies.

They are very different than 7.62x39 used in AK rifles and some AK derived squad automatic weapons.

Dominatus #11 Posted Nov 08 2011 - 03:42

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9881 battles
  • 12,000
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    12-21-2010

View Postblurr91, on Nov 08 2011 - 03:34, said:

There's a huge difference between a "machinegun" and a "squad automatic weapon" that uses intermediate rifle rounds.

GPMG use 7.62x51 NATO in the western armies, and 7.62x54R in the com bloc armies.

They are very different than 7.62x39 used in AK rifles and some AK derived squad automatic weapons.

An AK round is indeed smaller, but that does not mean that the point that saying a machinegun is more powerful than a rifle is valid. To use the American example again, FALs and G3s, both common rifles, use the same ammo as the M240 and M60 machinguns, the 7.62x51mm NATO round.

ZiggyDeath #12 Posted Nov 08 2011 - 05:44

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 2862 battles
  • 1,044
  • Member since:
    08-07-2010

View Postblurr91, on Nov 08 2011 - 01:51, said:

Hand grenades and 40mm grenades are mainly for anti personnel use. 50BMG cannot penetrate any part of an MBT.
There are modern .50cal rounds which can punch through quite a bit of armor (44mm RHAe). While something like the M60 would be impervious in the front and sides, older lightly armored MBTs, like the original Leopard, would be at risk.

There are also modern HEDP rounds for various 40mm grenade launchers which are effective against lightly armored vehicles. They carry around the same RHAe penetration as the new MK211 .50cal rounds, but with a much greater effect on target.

View PostDominatus, on Nov 08 2011 - 03:42, said:

An AK round is indeed smaller, but that does not mean that the point that saying a machinegun is more powerful than a rifle is valid. To use the American example again, FALs and G3s, both common rifles, use the same ammo as the M240 and M60 machinguns, the 7.62x51mm NATO round.
In his defense, however, there aren't highly specialized AP rounds like SLAP for the 7.62x39.

Also, while they might be firing pretty much the same cartridge, rate of fire makes a large difference. A battle rifle firing AP rounds at a lightly armored vehicle is much different than emptying a belt into the same target.

What is fairly scary, however, is that the mentioned weapons would all be very effective against many WWII era tanks.

Spectre12078 #13 Posted Nov 08 2011 - 06:39

    Major

  • Players
  • 19978 battles
  • 2,485
  • [1ADE] 1ADE
  • Member since:
    04-12-2011
Well,theres an upgrade kit to the Patton to make it a wannabe Abrams.

Blackhorse_Three #14 Posted Nov 08 2011 - 07:01

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 1528 battles
  • 250
  • [2_11] 2_11
  • Member since:
    08-02-2011

Quote

Well,theres an upgrade kit to the Patton to make it a wannabe Abrams.
That's true, Prive, but not for tanks in our inventory ... In fact, a slab-sided composite armor kit was available for the M60A3 in the mid 1980's, but it was not deployed on US tanks. During the 1990's, Teledyne of Muskegon, Michigan quietly upgraded Romainian T-55s and other vehicles for client armies in eastern Europe and Africa.

Spectre12078 #15 Posted Nov 08 2011 - 07:26

    Major

  • Players
  • 19978 battles
  • 2,485
  • [1ADE] 1ADE
  • Member since:
    04-12-2011
In all honesty,Im all for putting the Pattons,Pershings and 103s back in service for small conflicts and keeping our big boys toys under wraps.

Mow_Mow #16 Posted Nov 08 2011 - 09:51

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 11378 battles
  • 14,793
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    10-25-2010

View PostSpectre12078, on Nov 08 2011 - 07:26, said:

In all honesty,Im all for putting the Pattons,Pershings and 103s back in service for small conflicts and keeping our big boys toys under wraps.

The kinds of small conflicts that would be required to keep the modern MBT from being used would probably shred a WWII/early Cold War vintage tank.

Then you have to explain to the public why you are sending American lives in old tanks because you want to save a few dollars on the finance bill. Or how many lives is it worth to keep a program under wraps for another month.

EDIT: I wish I had my very own T29. It'd make a great Christmas ornament :D

blurr91 #17 Posted Nov 08 2011 - 19:48

    Major

  • Players
  • 12259 battles
  • 2,389
  • Member since:
    05-21-2011

View PostBlackhorse_Three, on Nov 08 2011 - 07:01, said:

That's true, Prive, but not for tanks in our inventory ... In fact, a slab-sided composite armor kit was available for the M60A3 in the mid 1980's, but it was not deployed on US tanks. During the 1990's, Teledyne of Muskegon, Michigan quietly upgraded Romainian T-55s and other vehicles for client armies in eastern Europe and Africa.

I could swear I saw pictures some USMC M60A3 with add on armor during the 1st Gulf War.

blurr91 #18 Posted Nov 08 2011 - 19:52

    Major

  • Players
  • 12259 battles
  • 2,389
  • Member since:
    05-21-2011

View PostSpectre12078, on Nov 08 2011 - 07:26, said:

In all honesty,Im all for putting the Pattons,Pershings and 103s back in service for small conflicts and keeping our big boys toys under wraps.

I'm all for liquidating those tanks as museum pieces or to private collectors.  At worst, use them as targets.  Do NOT send them to the front of any war.

The_Chieftain #19 Posted Nov 09 2011 - 05:54

    Military Specialist

  • Military Specialist
  • 4709 battles
  • 7,095
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View Postblurr91, on Nov 08 2011 - 19:48, said:

I could swear I saw pictures some USMC M60A3 with add on armor during the 1st Gulf War.

M60A1, with ERA panels. Marines never got the A3 as far as I am aware.

http://operatorchan....used in the.jpg

blurr91 #20 Posted Nov 09 2011 - 19:52

    Major

  • Players
  • 12259 battles
  • 2,389
  • Member since:
    05-21-2011

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Nov 09 2011 - 05:54, said:

M60A1, with ERA panels. Marines never got the A3 as far as I am aware.

http://operatorchan....used in the.jpg

A1 it is.  Thank you sir.

Did the marines transition to M1 after this?  No more M60 in service anywhere in the US inventory?