The Ukrainians are doing company-sized attacks from one winbreak to the next, the use tanks to snipe from behind. The M60 would do ok at this, especially the variants with thermals.
The main AT capabilities for the vatnigs are mines and helicopters, neither of which care about what tank you've got.
Its shit. It was shit for Iran, shit for Israel (somehow), shit for the Saudis and shit for the Ethiopians. The only war its ever done well in was the gulf war which isn't really saying much.
What makes you think it would be good for the Ukrainians? Just send Abrams instead its not like theres a massive shortage or anything. We're supposed to be upgrading their army here, not filling the lines.
Delusional? Look up how they did yourself. The m60 being garbage is the reason the Merkava exists lol and in Iran it basically traded 1:1 with Chinese t62s and t72ms. How exactly is the patton a step up from Ukrainian t64bvs? This shit was outdated in the 70s let alone the 2020s mbt70 got cancelled for a number of reasons but none of them were "the m60 is good enough"
M60 has never been garbage and getting old and replaced by newer tanks is a natural process. >in Iran it basically traded 1:1 with Chinese t62s and t72ms
It wrecked T-62s in Israel and if it traded evenly with T-72ms it can face russian tanks today. >How exactly is the patton a step up from Ukrainian t64bvs?
It's not but it's still useful. It's definitely better than the modded T-55 Slovenia or someone else sent.
>M60 has never been garbage
The M60 is a shit tank, it was shit when it first entered service and its still shit to this day. The US didn't make a good tank post WWII until the Abrams.
>I don't jerk off to the M60 >So I got to be a troony
You are a profoundly dumb Black person if you think that the M60 is a good tank. It was way outdated by the time it entered service, the only good thing on it was the cannon, everything else about it was ass. Dogshit outdated armor, meanwhile the rest of the world was already making advancements in armor such as composite armors, it had out dated sights and no stabilized gun until the RISE model.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Lmao, the tankie troon keeps doubling down. Go back to your russia winning simulator.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>Lmao, the tankie troon keeps doubling down. Go back to your russia winning simulator.
??? When the frick did I ever say that Russia is the only good tank designers? You have literal brain rot if you think that the M60 is some amazing tank, I even said in my first response to you that the US finally got a good tank with the Abrams, it just took nearly 30 years for the US to finally create a good tank even though their NATO allies were already making good tanks like the brits. You can keep crying about trannies and russia but its the truth. The M60 was a outdated shit tank when it entered service and it still is a outdated dog shit tank. The US is better off giving abrams to the Ukrainians because its an actual good tank that can help them.
11 months ago
Anonymous
It was literally the heaviest armored MBT until the Chieftain. It was the first tank with actually modern and working stabilization. You're a delusional shit eater that doesn't know a thing about tank history. > The M60 was a outdated shit tank when it entered service
Literally braindead tankie drivel. Ablooo abloo. Even your prostitute mom sounds smarter when she sucks dicks in the back street.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Oh, and its optics and ballistic computer(yes, it had one) were the absolute state of the art until the advent of digital gun laying systems with laser range finders.
11 months ago
Anonymous
If a T-64BV can do it, an M60a1 can do it (in terms of FCS capability)
11 months ago
Anonymous
T-64B was actually the first soviet tank that was better than that. T-64A had a setup similar to the M60 but T-64B added a digital fire control and laser range finder. The quality wasn't there, naturally, but it was still a very modern system for the time. T-72 never had that until the whatever T-72goobliediasiatic prototype they renamed T-90 after the gulf war.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>digital fire control and laser range finder.
OK, M60A3 then
The M60 was fine when it entered service, the problem with it past the decade mark was that the US kept failing to replace it - the M60A2, MBT-70, XM-803. It was only in 1979 when the Abrams was finalized and ready to replace it, by that point the M60 had been in service for 2 decades.
11 months ago
Anonymous
The problem with M60s was not having APFSDS. Once they got a shell that could punch through soviet armor there was little wrong with it, besides the steel armor without ERA.
My point is that we have enough Abrams to send before scraping the barrel here. You dont look to replace a tank you bought/made 10 years ago if its good. In every war its been in its been outclassed and defeated/carried to victory like in the Israeli example it was Merkavas and aviation doing the killing while the only losses there were m60s running into newer t72s and literally getting shipped to Moscow (lol).
The T64 is just a few years younger and yet is still used heavily and has proven to be able to take on whatever tank the Russians can field. The tank is bad and thats okay because we have thousands of Abrams
Its shit. It was shit for Iran, shit for Israel (somehow), shit for the Saudis and shit for the Ethiopians. The only war its ever done well in was the gulf war which isn't really saying much.
What makes you think it would be good for the Ukrainians? Just send Abrams instead its not like theres a massive shortage or anything. We're supposed to be upgrading their army here, not filling the lines.
>traded 1:1 with Chinese t62s and t72ms
Irrelevant. See
The Ukrainians are doing company-sized attacks from one winbreak to the next, the use tanks to snipe from behind. The M60 would do ok at this, especially the variants with thermals.
The main AT capabilities for the vatnigs are mines and helicopters, neither of which care about what tank you've got.
All you need is a tank that can roll behind infantry assault detachments and snipe platoon dugouts on request. The experienced Ukrainian units that are consistently gaining ground do so by leading with light vehicles and using tanks as direct fire support and overwatch.
M60 and Leo1 would do fine in zapo. The practical situation renders all this warthunder dickmeasuring moot.
they actually did fine in 1973
no tank in active service was well armored enough to deal with Malyuktas, but once tactics were adapted the accuracy of enemy gunners fell way off
I don't know where all this negativity is coming from, the patton was my workhorse fighting against the soviet hordes and it did very well when supported with artillery and anti-tank infantry
This would do better
Once the first vatnik gets MUNCHED the rest will flee in panic
The Ukrainians are doing company-sized attacks from one winbreak to the next, the use tanks to snipe from behind. The M60 would do ok at this, especially the variants with thermals.
The main AT capabilities for the vatnigs are mines and helicopters, neither of which care about what tank you've got.
>my dick when i stick it in a woodchipper
Give the Ukrainians all the Wiesels, I want to see it
Its shit. It was shit for Iran, shit for Israel (somehow), shit for the Saudis and shit for the Ethiopians. The only war its ever done well in was the gulf war which isn't really saying much.
What makes you think it would be good for the Ukrainians? Just send Abrams instead its not like theres a massive shortage or anything. We're supposed to be upgrading their army here, not filling the lines.
>Its shit. It was shit for Iran, shit for Israel (somehow)
lol, delusional. i bet you shill for slavBlack persone tanks here
Delusional? Look up how they did yourself. The m60 being garbage is the reason the Merkava exists lol and in Iran it basically traded 1:1 with Chinese t62s and t72ms. How exactly is the patton a step up from Ukrainian t64bvs? This shit was outdated in the 70s let alone the 2020s mbt70 got cancelled for a number of reasons but none of them were "the m60 is good enough"
M60 has never been garbage and getting old and replaced by newer tanks is a natural process.
>in Iran it basically traded 1:1 with Chinese t62s and t72ms
It wrecked T-62s in Israel and if it traded evenly with T-72ms it can face russian tanks today.
>How exactly is the patton a step up from Ukrainian t64bvs?
It's not but it's still useful. It's definitely better than the modded T-55 Slovenia or someone else sent.
>M60 has never been garbage
The M60 is a shit tank, it was shit when it first entered service and its still shit to this day. The US didn't make a good tank post WWII until the Abrams.
Lol, ok tankie troon.
>I don't jerk off to the M60
>So I got to be a troony
You are a profoundly dumb Black person if you think that the M60 is a good tank. It was way outdated by the time it entered service, the only good thing on it was the cannon, everything else about it was ass. Dogshit outdated armor, meanwhile the rest of the world was already making advancements in armor such as composite armors, it had out dated sights and no stabilized gun until the RISE model.
Lmao, the tankie troon keeps doubling down. Go back to your russia winning simulator.
>Lmao, the tankie troon keeps doubling down. Go back to your russia winning simulator.
??? When the frick did I ever say that Russia is the only good tank designers? You have literal brain rot if you think that the M60 is some amazing tank, I even said in my first response to you that the US finally got a good tank with the Abrams, it just took nearly 30 years for the US to finally create a good tank even though their NATO allies were already making good tanks like the brits. You can keep crying about trannies and russia but its the truth. The M60 was a outdated shit tank when it entered service and it still is a outdated dog shit tank. The US is better off giving abrams to the Ukrainians because its an actual good tank that can help them.
It was literally the heaviest armored MBT until the Chieftain. It was the first tank with actually modern and working stabilization. You're a delusional shit eater that doesn't know a thing about tank history.
> The M60 was a outdated shit tank when it entered service
Literally braindead tankie drivel. Ablooo abloo. Even your prostitute mom sounds smarter when she sucks dicks in the back street.
Oh, and its optics and ballistic computer(yes, it had one) were the absolute state of the art until the advent of digital gun laying systems with laser range finders.
If a T-64BV can do it, an M60a1 can do it (in terms of FCS capability)
T-64B was actually the first soviet tank that was better than that. T-64A had a setup similar to the M60 but T-64B added a digital fire control and laser range finder. The quality wasn't there, naturally, but it was still a very modern system for the time. T-72 never had that until the whatever T-72goobliediasiatic prototype they renamed T-90 after the gulf war.
>digital fire control and laser range finder.
OK, M60A3 then
The M60 was fine when it entered service, the problem with it past the decade mark was that the US kept failing to replace it - the M60A2, MBT-70, XM-803. It was only in 1979 when the Abrams was finalized and ready to replace it, by that point the M60 had been in service for 2 decades.
The problem with M60s was not having APFSDS. Once they got a shell that could punch through soviet armor there was little wrong with it, besides the steel armor without ERA.
My point is that we have enough Abrams to send before scraping the barrel here. You dont look to replace a tank you bought/made 10 years ago if its good. In every war its been in its been outclassed and defeated/carried to victory like in the Israeli example it was Merkavas and aviation doing the killing while the only losses there were m60s running into newer t72s and literally getting shipped to Moscow (lol).
The T64 is just a few years younger and yet is still used heavily and has proven to be able to take on whatever tank the Russians can field. The tank is bad and thats okay because we have thousands of Abrams
We don't even have enough M60s for there to be a barrel to scrape, bud.
That's why Abrams were sent - we have thousands - instead of M60s.
We should send M1s, they are much newer and more capable. This doesn't make M60 a bad tank, especially in retrospective.
>traded 1:1 with Chinese t62s and t72ms
Irrelevant. See
All you need is a tank that can roll behind infantry assault detachments and snipe platoon dugouts on request. The experienced Ukrainian units that are consistently gaining ground do so by leading with light vehicles and using tanks as direct fire support and overwatch.
M60 and Leo1 would do fine in zapo. The practical situation renders all this warthunder dickmeasuring moot.
it would unironically do ok in zapo.
it would unironically do ok in zapo
Dude, it did NOT DO WELL in 1973.
It would not do well in Ukraine.
they actually did fine in 1973
no tank in active service was well armored enough to deal with Malyuktas, but once tactics were adapted the accuracy of enemy gunners fell way off
it would unironically do ok in zapo
It's hard to tell if any of this is a falseflag or who is falseflagging if so
I don't know where all this negativity is coming from, the patton was my workhorse fighting against the soviet hordes and it did very well when supported with artillery and anti-tank infantry