So countries whose military were post-revolutionary shitshows and failed to successfully operate any other tank they had in inventory.
Yeah, I'm not holding that against the M60. They could have been driving around War of the Worlds Tripods around and would have managed to fuck it up.
They were both fighting peers and both sides using the m60 won in spite of it being shit. If these arent fair comparisons then what is? Are t72s actually amazing and only look bad because of how they're used & who uses them? 2 peer retards fighting is a better comparison than one outgunned competent country vs a bunch of retards (israeli shermans v t55s)
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Are ya fucking illiterate? What part of "failed to operate anything else well" did you not understand? Fuck, the Ukrainians are tearing the balls off of the Ruskies. T-72 on T-72 violence. It is simultaneously the best and worst tank in the world right now if we completely ignore operator competency and only look at results on the battlefield.
Yeah, it wasn't because of an innate failure of the tank, Irannies literally just drove them in lines where they were hunted by T-72s; Israelis used them to great effect.
nothing. it was a tank built to the doctrine of the US at the time. When we switched over to AirLand Battle, there was no longer a need for a "Defensive" Tank.
This. Armor is a component of doctrine. It wasn't a high performance tank because doctrine didn't call for a high performance tank. It needed to sit in a fortified position in Eastern Europe and be able to quickly and accurately defeat advancing soviet armor and as a secondary consideration assault enemy positions when called upon.
Doctrine called for a shitload to be made, and the individual performance wasn't terribly important. When the army reforms came around in the 70s-80s and the big five came out with an emphasis on equipment overmatch compared to the soviets, then you see a focus on high performance equipment.
Nothing, we just found better shit to dump our money on. The west can afford to dump absolete designs and doesn’t keep it on welfare like China and the Russians do
It was always a stopgap tank that stuck around longer than it needed to. It came about as a cheaper and simpler alternative to the T95 then stuck around because the MBT-70 was also too complicated to work out.
Nothing in particular, the US was just kind of spinning its wheels stagnating with tank design when Soviet armor was at its peak. It only looks bad by comparison.
Israeli are pretty much hates those small cupola and it's unreliable machine gun that they cut it down with a blowtorch to kept the low profile and replaced it with M2 machine gun instead.
is this the one with extremely flammable hydraulic fluid?
Yes, but it was fixed with the A3.
No, that's the earlier M48 that got fixed with M48A3 variant that had its engine replaced with the one from M60.
Building the same tank a third time expecting different results.
It couldn't be more perfect.
It was excellent when it was new. Better than its contemporaries.
Yeah, don't come here.
good solid tank
A solid tank that got shit on in every war it fought in except for when we used it
>Sand morons are bad at war
holy shit anon,
arabs didnt use the m60
We did in desert storm and it performed just fine but the M1 hogged all the TV time.
marine m60s shit on iraqi t-72s
Yeah I know that's why I said "when we used it". We could of swapped m60s for literally any other tank and the result would be the same
>we never got to see Super Shermans wipe out Iraqi T-72s
Feels bad man.
Where did this getting shit on happen? The only war I can think of is Yom Kippur and the Magach 6 held it's own there.
iran iraq and ogaden war
So countries whose military were post-revolutionary shitshows and failed to successfully operate any other tank they had in inventory.
Yeah, I'm not holding that against the M60. They could have been driving around War of the Worlds Tripods around and would have managed to fuck it up.
They were both fighting peers and both sides using the m60 won in spite of it being shit. If these arent fair comparisons then what is? Are t72s actually amazing and only look bad because of how they're used & who uses them? 2 peer retards fighting is a better comparison than one outgunned competent country vs a bunch of retards (israeli shermans v t55s)
Are ya fucking illiterate? What part of "failed to operate anything else well" did you not understand? Fuck, the Ukrainians are tearing the balls off of the Ruskies. T-72 on T-72 violence. It is simultaneously the best and worst tank in the world right now if we completely ignore operator competency and only look at results on the battlefield.
Yeah, it wasn't because of an innate failure of the tank, Irannies literally just drove them in lines where they were hunted by T-72s; Israelis used them to great effect.
Skill issue
nothing. it was a tank built to the doctrine of the US at the time. When we switched over to AirLand Battle, there was no longer a need for a "Defensive" Tank.
This. Armor is a component of doctrine. It wasn't a high performance tank because doctrine didn't call for a high performance tank. It needed to sit in a fortified position in Eastern Europe and be able to quickly and accurately defeat advancing soviet armor and as a secondary consideration assault enemy positions when called upon.
Doctrine called for a shitload to be made, and the individual performance wasn't terribly important. When the army reforms came around in the 70s-80s and the big five came out with an emphasis on equipment overmatch compared to the soviets, then you see a focus on high performance equipment.
It made Stalin shit himself and order the crash development of the T-62 and 72
but stalin was dead according to the standard chronology
Excellent bait
Nothing. Excellent tank.
Look at the state of that turret wtf was wrong with US tank designers
Everything up until the M1 looked dumb af the turrets were just bulbus blobs
Nothing, we just found better shit to dump our money on. The west can afford to dump absolete designs and doesn’t keep it on welfare like China and the Russians do
>What went wrong?
T95, MBT70, and XM803
It's not fair, bros
Nothing.
It was always a stopgap tank that stuck around longer than it needed to. It came about as a cheaper and simpler alternative to the T95 then stuck around because the MBT-70 was also too complicated to work out.
Nothing in particular, the US was just kind of spinning its wheels stagnating with tank design when Soviet armor was at its peak. It only looks bad by comparison.
X-Box HUEG. Imagine putting next to solid Russian T-55 in hull down position and you can spotted the inferior "Patton" from many kilometers away.
>Design low-profile turret
>Fuckhuge commander pagoda on top
I still think it's neat
Israeli are pretty much hates those small cupola and it's unreliable machine gun that they cut it down with a blowtorch to kept the low profile and replaced it with M2 machine gun instead.
>they cut it down with a blowtorch
browatt
the t-55 is designed to be crewed by starved communist manlets and children, the m60 is designed for extra large american men, that's the difference
Biggest wonder for me is why did it have that sub-turret when the M3 Lee showed how impractical they were in practice?