Jump to content


M48 and M60 patton tanks?


This topic has been archived.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

Trophy_Wench #21 Posted Dec 22 2011 - 19:05

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 7265 battles
  • 302
  • Member since:
    06-14-2011

View PostVirgilHilts, on Dec 22 2011 - 06:08, said:

How is it that the M60 is based on the same hull as the M46, M47, and M48, yet the M48 and M60 are "main battle tanks", but the M46 and M47 are not?  <_<

Actually the M60 had more in common with the M103 and M48 than the original M26. the M46 and 47 tanks are direct decendants of that tank while the M48, despite sharing some components with the earlier designs and looking superficially similar to one another, they are all quite different. The M60 in fact was a new design that also shared some of the components from the M103, as it was meant to be its replacement.

View Postgabriel, on Dec 22 2011 - 14:53, said:

The classification doesn't matter, it's the role they play in game.  These vehicle would be fast, well armed, but not particularly well armored - this is entirely consistent with high tier medium play.

More to the point, I don't recall the DEVs stating anywhere that the "MBT" title blackballs any vehicle from entering the game. Which for most people includes the T-55, even if you don't consider it as such.

Let me answer your statements one at a time here:

Actually it would matter, you have to look at the historical role the MBT plays in armor development. These vehicles were supposed to not only replace the Heavy tank, they were also meant to be direct replacement for most armies medium tanks as well; essentially a 'one-size-ftis-all' vehicle. The speed and maneuverability of a medium tank with the weight and probably 90% of the armor of heavy tanks. Add to that advanced armaments that while not physically larger than their heavy counterparts, were still powerful enough to kill nearly anything they hit and were supremely accurate. (I should note here that accuracy in this game when refering to tanks of this period is relative as the physics engine in WOT is probably incapable of modeling a Fire Control System.) Now you might say "But Trophy_Wench, what about the E-100 or the Maus or the T95 GMC etc. Those heavy tanks still dominate the game and even the capabilities of you're so called MBT would have just as hard a time killing them as any other medium or heavy!" Well you'd be right in thinking that but understand that those particular examples are, for all intended purposes- freaks. Superheavy tanks that would not normally have any basis in reality but here in the vacuum of WOT they work just fine.

Secondly, you're right. At no point have the devs said that MBTs have no place in WOT but the reluctance of them to even entertain the idea of a tier 10 medium tank is a sign that they are not intrested in armor developments beyond the 1950s. Now as for the T54 and Type 59, which are essentially one in the same, you have to look at the context in which the T54 was developed. It was designed, developed and deployed in an age where the term and concept of  'Main Battle Tank' had not been thought of yet. There were still clearly defined roles for Heavy, Medium and Light tanks on the battlefield. However the designs of these new "medium" tanks were so good that they, by default became the standard all purpose tank in their respective armies. (The T54/55 and Centurion are the most prime examples.) In doing so, they relegated the Heavy and Light tank designs to fulfill more niche roles until the development of a true MBT in the early 1960s squeezed the Heavies out of the picture once and for all. So technically, it is both correct and acceptable to have these tanks in this game because it is only the modern context that we continue to refer to these vehicles as Main Battle Tanks.

VirgilHilts #22 Posted Dec 22 2011 - 19:40

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 14799 battles
  • 3,416
  • Member since:
    07-31-2010
M103

M103 Heavy Tank

The M103, the Heavy Tank variant of the M48 series, was designed to counter to the Soviet's JS III heavy tanks, which outclassed all other US tanks during the immediate period following World War II. At nearly 65 tons, it was by far the heaviest tank placed in service by the US Army prior to the advent of the M1 Abrams.

The strong family resemblance to the M48 was based on the components common to both vehicles. The suspension was similar to that of the M48, though modified to carry the increased weight. The M103 had one additional road wheel on each side, though unlike the M48 most of the M103's torsion arms had shock absorbers. Six return rollers were fitted, and the final-drives had much larger exposed gear-boxes.

While the M103 hull was similar in shape to the M48, it was longer and wider, and had thicker armor with better ballistic shape in the forward hull. The engine deck was unlike that of the M48. The turret was totally different, with a large bustle to enable the 120mm gun to recoil. The ballistic shape was excellent from the front, but poor from the rear. The machine gun mount was used to allow the gun to be trained, elevated, and fired from within the vehicle.

The M103A1 differed slightly from the M103, having improved fire-control devices that resulted in minor changes in the turret shape.

The M103A2 was the Heavy Tank variant of the M60 series. It had the large bulged rear engine deck, typical of the diesel engined M48 and M60. It saw service, with a few being around into the 1970's.


According to that article the M48 and M60 are the end result of the M26/46/7 line. And the M103 is the heavy tank variant of the M48/60. So it hardly seems the M60 was developed to replace the M103. In fact, the M60 was developed from the M48, as a response to the "upgunned" version of the T54 which was given to British intelligence by rebels during the uprising in Hungary in 1956.


Regarding the classification of "main battle tank", first off, it is a term that is bandied about, and used for various purposes, and not applied officially to anything until the sixties . Second, since the M103 is a heavy tank, and of the same period as the M60, which was built from an M48 medium tank, the M60 was classified as a medium tank. The term "main battle tank" came later, when production of the M103 heavy tank was ended, and the U.S. decided that one series of tank would do all jobs.


All of the high tech "fire control" equipment that people try to use to classify the M60 as a "main battle tank" was not used on the base M60 tank which was procured under the original 1958 contract. That equipment came later, on the M60A1 and later variants from 1962 and later.

__gabriel__ #23 Posted Dec 22 2011 - 22:47

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16055 battles
  • 5,930
  • [VILIN] VILIN
  • Member since:
    07-18-2010

Quote

Actually it would matter

ISU-152,
In the CIS server it's classified as per Soviet nomenclature as a self propelled gun - on the English language servers they use Western nomenclature and label them Tank destroyers - when they were no such things, they just happened to be pressed into service as such on occasion throughout the war, and in game have the same capabilities of a "tank destroyer".

Same applies to so called "MBTs". The nomenclature is just a matter of semantics,

Trophy_Wench #24 Posted Dec 22 2011 - 23:47

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 7265 battles
  • 302
  • Member since:
    06-14-2011
You make an excellent point gabriel. I mean, just look at all the "Assault Guns" in the German TD line. However semantics aside, my original point still stands. The M60, no matter how you classify it, is just too new to be appropriate for a game that focuses mainly on WW2 era vehicles. (If anything ~1959 is a good cutoff date.) As I stated in an earlier post, the M48 as a tier 9 medium would be more than adequate. Especially when you throw in all of its obscure, one-off experimental designs.

VirgilHilts #25 Posted Dec 23 2011 - 01:36

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 14799 battles
  • 3,416
  • Member since:
    07-31-2010

View PostTrophy_Wench, on Dec 22 2011 - 23:47, said:

You make an excellent point gabriel. I mean, just look at all the "Assault Guns" in the German TD line. However semantics aside, my original point still stands. The M60, no matter how you classify it, is just too new to be appropriate for a game that focuses mainly on WW2 era vehicles. (If anything ~1959 is a good cutoff date.) As I stated in an earlier post, the M48 as a tier 9 medium would be more than adequate. Especially when you throw in all of its obscure, one-off experimental designs.

By that cut off, the original M60 is in. It was accepted for production and/or procurement on or before 1959.

There are plenty of vehicles already in the game that are far from World War II era vehicles.

Trophy_Wench #26 Posted Dec 23 2011 - 03:30

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 7265 battles
  • 302
  • Member since:
    06-14-2011
I suppose I should clarify what I mean by being too new. Yes the M60 was accepted into service around 1959 but did not  actually enter service until December of 1960. Now again I know I'm debating semantics here but the thing with the M60 is simply this: Its design is a generation too new to be compatible with the previous designs that had generally stemmed from or just after WW2. The idea of putting an MBT in a game that is so regimented between Light, Medium, and Heavy tanks (as well as Tank Destroyers) could either be massively destabilizing or massively underwhelming since the need to forgo historical realism for the sake of gameplay balance would in essence "nerf", as you kids call it, the tank. As I said before, The M48 is perfectly adequate to fulfill the role of tier 9 medium. (Provided of course, changes were made to the TechTree.)

VirgilHilts #27 Posted Dec 23 2011 - 04:21

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 14799 battles
  • 3,416
  • Member since:
    07-31-2010

View PostTrophy_Wench, on Dec 23 2011 - 03:30, said:

I suppose I should clarify what I mean by being too new. Yes the M60 was accepted into service around 1959 but did not  actually enter service until December of 1960. Now again I know I'm debating semantics here but the thing with the M60 is simply this: Its design is a generation too new to be compatible with the previous designs that had generally stemmed from or just after WW2. The idea of putting an MBT in a game that is so regimented between Light, Medium, and Heavy tanks (as well as Tank Destroyers) could either be massively destabilizing or massively underwhelming since the need to forgo historical realism for the sake of gameplay balance would in essence "nerf", as you kids call it, the tank. As I said before, The M48 is perfectly adequate to fulfill the role of tier 9 medium. (Provided of course, changes were made to the TechTree.)


Without any sort of electronic fire control system, which was not on the original M60, and is not modeled in WoT, the M60 is mostly an M48 with a 105MM cannon (already in the game), a diesel engine, and an improved front hull. That does not constitute a "main battle tank". The fact is, the M60 prototype work began in 1956/7, was based on M48 hulls, and was finished by late 1958. An improved version of the M48 hull is hardly a separate newer generation. Considering the M60 is considered to be a variant of the M48, and the M103 a variant of both, the M60 is hardly too new for this game.

At the age of 48, I'm hardly a "kid".

DJ18 #28 Posted Dec 23 2011 - 04:49

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 18651 battles
  • 1,141
  • [CB] CB
  • Member since:
    09-04-2010
I would like to see the M48 and M60 as tier 9 and 10 Mediums probably in another American Medium Tank line.

As of currently it was said the American tree will NOT be getting another heavy tree. So I think they should add more Mediums and lights to make up for this!

Trophy_Wench #29 Posted Dec 23 2011 - 06:07

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 7265 battles
  • 302
  • Member since:
    06-14-2011

View PostVirgilHilts, on Dec 23 2011 - 04:21, said:

Without any sort of electronic fire control system, which was not on the original M60, and is not modeled in WoT, the M60 is mostly an M48 with a 105MM cannon (already in the game), a diesel engine, and an improved front hull. That does not constitute a "main battle tank". The fact is, the M60 prototype work began in 1956/7, was based on M48 hulls, and was finished by late 1958. An improved version of the M48 hull is hardly a separate newer generation. Considering the M60 is considered to be a variant of the M48, and the M103 a variant of both, the M60 is hardly too new for this game.


Well then answer me this; Why should we have the M60 instead of just an exotically upgraded M48? In fairness I really have no downer on the M60 as a machine, I'm actually quite fond of most American tanks and the M60 is no exception. But it is what it is, a Main Battle Tank. And you are just getting yourself on a slippery slope if you allow it into the game, I mean if they (the devs) were ever going to allow it or any tier 10 medium tanks in then whats next? T-62 or even 64? Chieftain? Leopard? AMX-30? Hell well throw in the Type 69/79 or even the Type 74 for good measure! Not that I wouldn't want to drive those tanks around, because I do but seriously, this game would have to be MASSIVELY overhauled in order for me to even want to play with those tanks. Even after all that, if they were to put it in, could you honestly say it deserves a tier 9 slot? Hell no, its way to overpowered to be anything other than a theoretical tier 10 which brings me right back to my question; Why should we have the M60 over the M48?

View PostVirgilHilts, on Dec 23 2011 - 04:21, said:

At the age of 48, I'm hardly a "kid".

I'm half your age and I'm the one who feels old around here? God I need help. http://forum.worldof...mile-tongue.gif

Mechanize #30 Posted Dec 23 2011 - 06:44

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 1241 battles
  • 2,237
  • [NDP] NDP
  • Member since:
    08-04-2010
The M48 Could be feasible as it served around the same time the M103 did (predating it in service actually.) You'd be really pushing your luck to get the M60 in-game however.

Plus contrary to what's being posted in this thread, The M48 was neither a main battle tank (The M60 was the first US tank to be designated and designed as an MBT.) Nor a heavy tank by US standards, It was a medium tank as it had a 90mm (or later a 105mm) gun, A 120mm or larger gun was required for a tank to be considered a heavy tank, Plus it had armor that was actually less thick then quite a few WW2 era designed heavy tanks such as the IS-3/4, The King Tiger, And essentially matching or exceeded by the cancelled T32 and the T26E5 "Jumbo Pershing". (Depending on the model, the M48 had about 120-130mm of frontal armor since by the closing stages of WW2 and it was becoming apparent that offensive technology was rapidly outpacing defensive technology and that big slow heavy tanks were going to be of limited use or even obsolete soon, So speed and armament was prioritized on the M48 Series.)

Lastly it weighed a rather modest 50 tons, As opposed to it's contemporary M103 which was a true heavy tank with a 120mm gun that weighed in at a hefty 65 tons.

evhgear #31 Posted Dec 23 2011 - 16:17

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 5124 battles
  • 386
  • Member since:
    09-10-2010
M26 and M46 are externally the same tank, only minor differences. The main difference is the engine. In game, Devs could simply merge the Pershing and Patton as the same tank. The M47 if I remember well is using the M46 hull but with a new turret(I think it's Patton's top turret in WoT). The M48 is a different tank. Production started in Jully 1952 so it fits quite well in game. M60 production started in 1959, so its a bit too far, since he was produced after the M103.

VirgilHilts #32 Posted Dec 23 2011 - 18:58

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 14799 battles
  • 3,416
  • Member since:
    07-31-2010

View Postevhgear, on Dec 23 2011 - 16:17, said:

M26 and M46 are externally the same tank, only minor differences. The main difference is the engine. In game, Devs could simply merge the Pershing and Patton as the same tank. The M47 if I remember well is using the M46 hull but with a new turret(I think it's Patton's top turret in WoT). The M48 is a different tank. Production started in Jully 1952 so it fits quite well in game. M60 production started in 1959, so its a bit too far, since he was produced after the M103.


Actually, according to what Chieftain posted, from Hunnicut, the M47 hull has a larger turret ring than the M46 hull, while sharing other components and dimensions. The M48 shares most of the features, dimensions, and components of the M47 hull.

I find some of the logic presented here to be somewhat interesting. All sorts of arguments made against the M60 (which is really the only viable tier X medium, should they decide to carry the game that far) claim it is too modern, and is a main battle tank. Yet they all ignore that the M103 is considered to be a heavy variant of the M48/M60 family, and that the M60 is a direct descendant of the M48, designed and prototyped in 1957 on the M48 hull,, and that the three differences between the M48 and the M60 are the diesel engine, the 105MM cannon (the M46 already has one for crying out loud) and an improved front hull shape/thickness.

The M60 was not "designed as the first main battle tank". The M60 was designed as an improvement on the M48, in response to the T-54 that we have in game at tier IX. The M60 was designed as the medium tank replacement for the M48, in 1957, as a compliment to the M103 heavy tank.

Only later, after the M103 production ceased, and the later M60A1 and M60A2 versions were produced, did the M60 attain the nomenclature of "main battle tank". Even then, it was the same hull, engine, cannon, and turret that were chosen in 1957/8. The only reason the U.S. military ever called the M60 a "main battle tank" is because it had to be called that in order to fit the new tank doctrine, which abandoned the separate medium and heavy tank designation. It was still the exact same size, had the came cannon, and most other components were either exactly the same, or very similar. The newer variants, from 1962 and later, had electronic gear and biological/radiological crew protection that is not even modeled in WoT.


Here is where history and logic actually take us. Around 1952 to 1955, the U.S. military was procuring and deploying the M48 Patton tank with a 90MM cannon. In 1956, rebels in Hungary presented British intelligence with what amounts to the T-54 we have in game at tier IX (except the T-54 in game has much better front armor), it had a new cannon. The British shared this intelligence coup with the U.S., and at the same time developed their new 105MM cannon. In 1956/7, the U.S. realized that the M48 was not truly competitive with this new T-54 with the improved cannon, and immediately issued a development requirement which resulted in M48 hulls being used to prototype the response to this new T-54. The result was that the M48 hull being reshaped in front and thickened for crew protection, a diesel engine was used to increase torque and fuel efficiency, and the British 105MM was installed in an improved turret. The dimensions and many components were shared between the M48 and the M60. So much so that some 20 or more years later, Taiwan actually put M60 turrets on M48 hulls to create a hybrid.

If the M48 and M60 are that closely related, it is really a huge stretch to call the M60, especially the original M60 as accepted in 1958, a "main battle tank", while claiming the M48 is a medium tank. It's even more of a stretch when you consider that the M48, the M60, and the M103 are all considered variants of one another, that the M103 is the heavy tank, and both the M48 and M60 were designed as medium tanks intended to be used together with the M103 heavy tank.  

So logic and history dictate that the M48 should be what we have at tier IX, and not some sort of M46/7 hybrid, which is what we actually have, since the M48 is what was deployed at unit level at the same time as the T-54 we have in game. And if there were to be tier X medium tanks, as the poll on Overlord's blog suggests, then the M60 is what should fill a tier X medium slot for the U.S.

When you consider that the T23 was removed from the game, the M47 and M48 are not in the game, and both T54 and T95 prototypes for U.S. mediums exist, it becomes obvious that enough U.S. medium tanks are available, in production and prototype formats, to fully fill out two lines of medium tanks. Given that the U.S. has only one heavy tank line, the U.S. should almost certainly have two rather full medium tank branches. Where the M4 Sherman line splits with the Jumbo and the Easy 8, it should stay split, and lead down two full branches of mediums.

tier V    M4 Sherman


tier VI   Jumbo Sherman                      
tier VII  T20
tier VIII T23                          
tier IX   T54                                
tier X    T95                                

tier VI   Easy 8 Sherman
tier VII  M26 Pershing
tier VIII M46/7 Patton
tier IX   M48 Patton
tier X    M60 Patton

Trophy_Wench #33 Posted Dec 23 2011 - 21:25

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 7265 battles
  • 302
  • Member since:
    06-14-2011
Ah, I see. So what you want to do VirgilHilts is put a second line of mediums into the game and make everyone happy. As opposed to my plan which is as follows:

T29(T7 Hvy)---- \                     / ----T20(T7 Med)
T32(T8 Hvy)<----M26(T8 Med)---->M46(T8 Med) [M47(T8 Med Premium)]
M103(T9 Hvy)                                 M48(T9 Med)
T
110(T10 Hvy)

I cant say much on the behalf of the T23 as I never played it but I'm not sure how much better or worse of a "Bridge" tank it would be at tier 7 than my idea of the M26 at tier 8. As for the T54 (and by extension, the T77) why not just make those some exotic upgrades for the M48. Its a pretty good compromise as far as I'm concerned, most of the experimental weapons for the M60 and T95 were all tested on the M48 hulls and turrets, and the experimental turrets for the other T tanks were tested on M48 hulls as well. This would give the M48 more than enough capability to deal with the T-54/55 series (they really should separate those two.)  Even its stock M41 gun would give reasonably good performance in the game.





VirgilHilts #34 Posted Dec 24 2011 - 00:01

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 14799 battles
  • 3,416
  • Member since:
    07-31-2010
It really is not a matter of what I want to do, it's just a matter of where history and logic lead.

The only place the heavy tank line and the medium tank line could be correctly connected is by connecting the M103 with an M48, which would be historically correct. That would, of course require the M48 to be a tier IX medium at some point, which is actually correct.

Upgrading tanks does not change the models, per WoT policy, so you really can't upgrade an M48 and turn it into something else.

The only way you can make the M47 a tier VIII premium is to give it a weaker cannon than the M46 has now. You could use the 90MM that is now on the M46.

I played the T23 in the beta, it actually did okay at tier VIII.

The only reason I suggested a second medium line is that the U.S. does not have a second heavy line, the developers say they don't think there'll be a second U.S. heavy line, and there are obviously enough mediums to at least give the U.S. a second medium line, making the tree for the U.S. have about as many branches and vehicles as the German and Russian lines.

evhgear #35 Posted Dec 24 2011 - 04:09

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 5124 battles
  • 386
  • Member since:
    09-10-2010
Since devs said that a second heavy line is not possible(maybe add a tank like the KV-IS could be possible), a second medium line could be possible and more logical than a heavy one. In that way, American could be the best for mediums, Germans and Russians would be better for Heavies and for French it could be the best light tanks.

GrandMasterRaziel #36 Posted Dec 24 2011 - 18:33

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 8836 battles
  • 178
  • Member since:
    05-29-2011

View PostKnightmare93, on Dec 21 2011 - 00:26, said:

The devs have stated that there will be NO tier 10 mediums (same goes for arty and TD's)
They also WON'T be adding in any more "newer" tanks (i.e. the Pattons that you mentioned). They wish to keep the game with a 1930's - 1950's "tank feel".

The M60 has more right to be in the game than the Type-59.  The M60 entered full production in 1959.  The Type-59 didn't enter full production until 1963.

I don't see why the M48 or the M60 couldn't be premium tanks, at least.  I don't see how you'd fit them into the non-premium line without taking something out, though.  The only thing I can think of would be to take out the Easy Eight and just incorporate the HVSS suspension and M1A2 gun into the standard Sherman (with appearance mods as necessary).  You'd also have to take out the Jumbo, though, or make it a dead-end offshoot of the Sherman tech tree.  I think the developers would think it's more trouble than it's worth.

BattleFieldHero #37 Posted Dec 25 2011 - 22:40

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 12511 battles
  • 192
  • [SIRES] SIRES
  • Member since:
    04-27-2011
The M48 should definetly be a premium tank, the t59 is and it was built in 1958, the M48 was built in 1953, whats with that?????

hankrious #38 Posted Jan 01 2012 - 10:00

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 17837 battles
  • 61
  • Member since:
    04-21-2011

View PostTrophy_Wench, on Dec 22 2011 - 05:49, said:

I don't think its a question of them being OP or not. (They would btw) Rather its the simple fact that they are Main Battle Tanks. Therefore they do not fit any classification avaliable in WOT and in fact would render some of them obsolete. the M60, Leopard 1, AMX 30, T-64 (which I consider to be the first official MBT in Soviet service, NOT the T-54/55 or T-62), Chieftain, the Vickers MBT types, maybe Panzer 61 (certainly Panzer 68) and the turret-less thing the Swedes built are all incompatible with WOT. I do however, believe that the devs could push the cutoff date to about 1959 or so but no later. That way we could have a few more "advanced" designs.

Edit: I take that back, the T-62 I suppose would be considered a Main Battle Tank. Either way, it doesn't fit the timeline.

The Type 59 gets a pass then? True, they were first produced in 1959 in limited numbers but did not enter serial production until...wait for it....1963!!!!
It is also a MTB. So all these arguments fall a bit flat.

B_Gras #39 Posted Jan 01 2012 - 11:17

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 6613 battles
  • 330
  • Member since:
    01-26-2011

View PostBattleFieldHero, on Dec 25 2011 - 22:40, said:

The M48 should definetly be a premium tank, the t59 is and it was built in 1958, the M48 was built in 1953, whats with that?????
The M48 should be the tier 9 med for USA. Not saying M46 suck, I mean with the arrival of Type 59(1959), the earlier M48(1953) is in the WoT tanks timeline. Maybe the devs will know this and add M48 in the game, for now they still busy with french tanks, American line revision,and the others.

About M60.....It could erase the point of having a tier 10.

VirgilHilts #40 Posted Jan 01 2012 - 17:04

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 14799 battles
  • 3,416
  • Member since:
    07-31-2010
The M48 should be a tier IX medium tank, absolutely. How is a medium tank in service before the T-54, that the "frankentank" T-54 we have was built to defeat, not in the game as the direct competition for the T-54?

Neither the M48 nor the M60 could be used as premium tanks. By definition, a premium tank must have either inferior armor or inferior firepower compared to non premium tanks of the same tier. I suppose, if they made tier X mediums, the M48 could be justified at tier X as a premium, but I doubt you'll see tier X premiums of any sort, and we may never see tier X mediums, although we should.

The base M60, designed and prototyped in 1957, put out for contract in 1958, and accepted into inventory in 1959, is absolutely a viable candidate for a tier X medium. Nothing on the original base M60 Patton medium tank is outside the pre-1959 time line. It is simply an upgrade of the M48 medium tank, and is the final version/iteration of the M26 Pershing family. The later version, the M60A1 and later, are outside the timeline of the game. But the base M60 is just an M48 with a diesel engine, a 105MM cannon, and a hull with a different shape and thicker armor on the front. The M103 is considered to be the heavy tank version of the M48/M60 medium family, it will be in the game at tier IX, it was built to compliment the M48 medium, which was already in service. The M60 was built as an upgrade of the M48 to compliment the M103 heavy. If the M103 is going to be in the game, then there is no valid reason to exclude either the M48 or the M60.