JohanssenJr

Where is the M60A3?

Seriously, why don't we have it yet?

 

Upgrades over M60A1 RISE:

-laser range finder

-thicker turret face and gun mantle

-engine exhaust smoke system

-better gun stabilizer

 

It just doesn't make sense why we don't have it yet.

  • Upvote 3
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JohanssenJr said:

Seriously, why don't we have it yet?

 

Upgrades over M60A1 RISE:

-laser range finder

-thicker turret face and gun mantle

-engine exhaust smoke system

-better gun stabilizer

 

It just doesn't make sense why we don't have it yet.

Dont forget the thermal sleeve for the barrel .

The L7 looks really weird without it .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’ll be a Premium for another country. :DD

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, JohanssenJr said:

Seriously, why don't we have it yet?

 

Because it'd be identical to the M60A1 gameplay-wise.

 

8 hours ago, JohanssenJr said:

Upgrades over M60A1 RISE:

-laser range finder

-thicker turret face and gun mantle

-engine exhaust smoke system

-better gun stabilizer

 

Current M60A1 already has a coincidence rangefinder.

I'd like to see a source for that, as there aren't any armour upgrades mentioned for the M60A3.

Pretty minor reason to implement a whole new tank.

Which is barely relevant given how the M60A1 also has a stabilizer that works just fine.

 

8 hours ago, JohanssenJr said:

It just doesn't make sense why we don't have it yet.

 

It makes plenty of sense, as we already have both the M60A1 and M60A1 RISE, both of which fill the same role as the M60A3.

 

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JohanssenJr said:

 

That's what really annoys me about the M26A1 in the Italian tree.

I wish we could get the M47e2 that the Egyptians had , mounted the M68 105 and the 1790 from the m60 patton .

We already have two Israeli tanks so a Egyptian tank wouldn't hurt besides it still uses american parts as upgrades . 

 

1 minute ago, Necrons31467 said:

 

Because it'd be identical to the M60A1 gameplay-wise.

 

 

Current M60A1 already has a coincidence rangefinder.

I'd like to see a source for that, as there aren't any armour upgrades mentioned for the M60A3.

Pretty minor reason to implement a whole new tank.

Which is barely relevant given how the M60A1 also has a stabilizer that works just fine.

 

 

It makes plenty of sense, as we already have both the M60A1 and M60A1 RISE, both of which fill the same role as the M60A3.

 

Im not even sure of the point of the m60 rise p since america has no other 8.7 unless you count the merk .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Necrons31467 said:

 

Because it'd be identical to the M60A1 gameplay-wise.

 

 

Current M60A1 already has a coincidence rangefinder.

I'd like to see a source for that, as there aren't any armour upgrades mentioned for the M60A3.

Pretty minor reason to implement a whole new tank.

Which is barely relevant given how the M60A1 also has a stabilizer that works just fine.

 

 

It makes plenty of sense, as we already have both the M60A1 and M60A1 RISE, both of which fill the same role as the M60A3.

 

 

He actually left out a major point and advantage.  The M60A3 has a solid state fire control system.  Which could fire more advanced ammunition such as M774 and M833.  Where as the Rise Passive was a mechanical system that had to have a special cam arm installed to fire M735.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Necrons31467 said:

 

Because it'd be identical to the M60A1 gameplay-wise.

 

The Leopard A1A1 L/44 is identical to the the TT one gameplay wise.

 

10 hours ago, Necrons31467 said:

 

 

Current M60A1 already has a coincidence rangefinder.

I'd like to see a source for that, as there aren't any armour upgrades mentioned for the M60A3.

Pretty minor reason to implement a whole new tank.

Which is barely relevant given how the M60A1 also has a stabilizer that works just fine.

 

I find the laser rangefinders of my T-55AM-1, Leo1A1 L/44, and Type-74G to be a bit more accurate than the coincidence rangefinders. But that's likely due to a not maxed out rangefinder crew skill.

I'll need to dig through my library when I get a chance, it's still in storage, but I remember a few of the books mentioning a 330mm think gun mantle and 270mm turret face. Send me a PM so I don't forget, I put most of my belongings in storage when I deployed and I still haven't completely emptied out the storage I was leasing.

Model wise it's really not that different, and I'd like to have a least two 8.7s in the US tree.

 

10 hours ago, Necrons31467 said:

It makes plenty of sense, as we already have both the M60A1 and M60A1 RISE, both of which fill the same role as the M60A3.

 

I still want it. And it's an additional 8.7 in the US tree.

  • Thanks 4
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, JohanssenJr said:

The Leopard A1A1 L/44 is identical to the the TT one gameplay wise.

 

Not really.

A1A1 doesn't have 650mm penetration HEAT-FS nor 400mm+ APFSDS.

 

Quote

I still want it. And it's an additional 8.7 in the US tree.

 

You're kinda implying it should be a premium with your previous comment though, I dunno if people would like a carbon copy M60A1(3).

Also, why 8.7? M60A1 at 8.3 is already a sub-par tank, let alone having it at 8.7.

 

18 hours ago, Conraire said:

He actually left out a major point and advantage.  The M60A3 has a solid state fire control system.  Which could fire more advanced ammunition such as M774 and M833.  Where as the Rise Passive was a mechanical system that had to have a special cam arm installed to fire M735.

 

A) That's not really relevant as Gaijin doesn't stick to historical ammunition loadouts.

B) M774 would get it uptiered to 9.0, where it'll be utter trash.

C) M833 isn't even on the M1IP, so I'm gonna go ahead and assume a M60A3 isn't getting it either.

 

Edited by Necrons31467
  • Confused 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/04/2019 at 21:55, JohanssenJr said:

Seriously, why don't we have it yet?

 

Upgrades over M60A1 RISE:

 

-thicker turret face and gun mantle

 

 

 

 

 

I haven't heard anything about the A3 having out right thicker armor than the A1's before, but I have heard of new built A3's having harder cast armor, the A1's are fairly soft.

 

And the harder armor on the A3 may not even be true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/04/2019 at 22:55, JohanssenJr said:

Seriously, why don't we have it yet?

 

Upgrades over M60A1 RISE:

-laser range finder

-thicker turret face and gun mantle

-engine exhaust smoke system

-better gun stabilizer

 

It just doesn't make sense why we don't have it yet.

I crewed both M60A1's (RISE/Passive) and M60A3's (both the early ones with passive sights, and the later ones with thermal sights -TTS) in the early to mid 1980's. All of my experience was in Europe.

 

As far as RL improvements go, yes, the A3 was a HUGE improvement over the A1 in the gunnery/fire control system department, no question at all. However, in game, laser rangefinders and advanced FCS are not modeled beyond making the range finding times slightly faster and a bit more accurate. That's it. No attempt is made to figure in the effects of crosswind sensors, improved computers handling trunion cant, or faster response when changing ammunition types. The most advanced tanks in the game don't really model this, and when it comes to ammunition types, I'm not even going there....not getting into night sights or thermals either, since no attempt is made in game to model these at all. Further, the A3's main gun was fitted with a thermal shroud to counter natural gun barrel droop when firing. Again, something the game might show graphically with various vehicles, but doesn't incorporate internally. As far as stabilization is concerned, the A3 used the same system as the A1 RISE/Passive, and these weren't as totally reliable as depicted in the game. Trust me.

 

M60A3 (TTS) did not have thicker armor over the gun mantlet when compared to an A1. The A1 did receive an upgrade, but this involved a slight thickening of the turret face armor down low, and at the point the turret met the hull. This was done in response to Israeli experience in the 1973 War, where shock or glancing hits would cause the gun mount's internal hydraulic lines to crack, and spray highly flammable fluid around the turret interior. Beyond the "cheek" armor, the hydraulic fluid was also replaced with a new type that had a higher flash point ("cherry juice" replaced by "lime juice" in troop parlance). The A3 inherited this improvement.

 

The M60A3 did indeed have an engine smoke system. I never saw one that worked. Reason why was the fact that after the "pack" was pulled a few times, the controls and/or system to spray diesel on the exhaust would either be broken or disconnected and left that way. Crews and mechanics really didn't have the time to waste worrying about them, and felt the smoke grenade launchers on the turret sides were good enough. Unit Commanders tended to agree. I suppose in this game where everything is mechanically perfect, it might be useful.

 

Some people also claim the A3 could use reactive armor. I never saw any vehicles fitted with the attachment points for it (even rebuilds from Mainz Army Depot) and no ERA kits were held at unit or depot level. The USMC did have ERA for it's M60A1's, and did mount it...the Corps never did use the M60A3 though. They went straight from M60A1's to M1A1's when they upgraded.

 

The only other RL improvement I can think of is the replacement of the "junk" coax by one that finally worked and was reliable (just ask an old US tanker about the M73 or M219!) This had already been done starting with the M60A1 RISE/Passive though.

 

So, if this game decided to throw in an M60A3, what would the players get? A slightly quicker ranging time, turret smoke grenade launchers (that should already be on both M60A1 versions in the game at least as modifications to purchase), an engine smoke system, and some new graphics. That's about it really. Not IMHO, worth either grinding or paying for if it were offered as a premium.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thicker armor of a whole 140mm on that breach not sure why people want another bad version of another m60 

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, *Lightening_Drake said:

Thicker armor of a whole 140mm on that breach not sure why people want another bad version of another m60 

 

Cause the M60A1-A3-Magach 6 could all be very good and enjoyable to play if Gaijin finally woke up and fixed the mantlet.

 

Godman did ultrasonic measurement on the M60A1 mantlet. The bug report was forwarded but apparently denied a few months later because reasons.

 

 

Gaijin staff themselves then went to Minnesota and calculated the mantlet thickness yet we still have no fix 8 months later.

@FryingTigerWT spent more than a day inside the M60A1 training turret, taking measurement and such.

 

This issue has been present for far too long and I'm amazed at the laziness/BIAS(take your pick) of Gaijin team to fix such an important error.

Heck, even the Italian premium M60A1 is suffering from it.

  • Thanks 2
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, CyrusJackson said:

Godman did ultrasonic measurement on the M60A1 mantlet. The bug report was forwarded but apparently denied a few months later because reasons.


Actually d00g3n was the one who made the ultrasonic measurements. Godman does live near that fabled M68 gun with the shield still attached though, if you look later in the report you can see where he put a camera inside of it.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 29/04/2019 at 10:08, Punisher_One said:

It’ll be a Premium for another country.

Like the Merkava or Magach?

 

On 29/04/2019 at 11:19, JohanssenJr said:

That's what really annoys me about the M26A1 in the Italian tree.

What annoys you the fact it's overtiered or that it's totally useless at 6.7?

 

 

Edited by LandKreuzer_89
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30/04/2019 at 05:50, Necrons31467 said:

 

Not really.

A1A1 doesn't have 650mm penetration HEAT-FS nor 400mm+ APFSDS.

 

For an 8.7 MBT with APFSDS, they still don't struggle with anything at their tier with darts, and the 105mm Leo1A1 just struggles a bit more with it's APFSDS than the L/44 in an uptier. The HEAT-FS on the L/44 is the only thing letting it be like, "lol, what uptier?"

 

Quote

 

 

You're kinda implying it should be a premium with your previous comment though, I dunno if people would like a carbon copy M60A1(3).

Also, why 8.7? M60A1 at 8.3 is already a sub-par tank, let alone having it at 8.7.

 

Oh, Lord no... We have enough 8.7 premiums. I just want it foldered under the M60A1 RISE.

 

Quote

M60A3 (TTS) did not have thicker armor over the gun mantlet when compared to an A1. The A1 did receive an upgrade, but this involved a slight thickening of the turret face armor down low, and at the point the turret met the hull. This was done in response to Israeli experience in the 1973 War, where shock or glancing hits would cause the gun mount's internal hydraulic lines to crack, and spray highly flammable fluid around the turret interior. Beyond the "cheek" armor, the hydraulic fluid was also replaced with a new type that had a higher flash point ("cherry juice" replaced by "lime juice" in troop parlance). The A3 inherited this improvement.

 

I'm going to assume that book was wrong then.

 

Quote

 

The M60A3 did indeed have an engine smoke system. I never saw one that worked. Reason why was the fact that after the "pack" was pulled a few times, the controls and/or system to spray diesel on the exhaust would either be broken or disconnected and left that way. Crews and mechanics really didn't have the time to waste worrying about them, and felt the smoke grenade launchers on the turret sides were good enough. Unit Commanders tended to agree. I suppose in this game where everything is mechanically perfect, it might be useful.

 

 

Good to know the general consensus of American soldiers has always been like this. "Oh this nifty gadget that's useless? Yeah, don't worry about fixing it." Lol

 

9 hours ago, LandKreuzer_89 said:

What annoys you the fact it's overtiered or that it's totally useless at 6.7?

 

Overtiered and not in the American tree at all.

Edited by JohanssenJr
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, JohanssenJr said:

I'm going to assume that book was wrong then.

Many, many sources that I've come across are wrong, when it comes to M60A1/A3 armor. Most of them are using minimum requirement (254 mm) as actual effective armor thickness, which is not correct at all. 

 

M60A1 had 354 mm of effective thickness on entire turret front, including the mantlet. And it is true for both M60A1 and A3.

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, JohanssenJr said:

I'm going to assume that book was wrong then.

Well, since you read a book, I'll just have to defer to your superior knowledge regarding the M60A3 then.

9 hours ago, JohanssenJr said:

Good to know the general consensus of American soldiers has always been like this. "Oh this nifty gadget that's useless? Yeah, don't worry about fixing it." Lol

I'll also defer to your knowledge in this matter. Obviously you have a huge amount of insight into what motivates soldiers when it comes to maintenance, field repair, and operational readiness issues. We'll just leave it at that OK? Lol

 

On a serious note though, from the Crew and Tank Commander PoV, our main concerns were: could the vehicle move, shoot, and communicate? What I mean here is were the engine, transmission and final drives, along with the track working and properly maintained, was the fire control system up and running within minimum specs, was the main gun boresighted, and the tank "synced" when it came to primary and secondary sights, did the machine guns work, and did the radios and intercom work? If we could answer "yes" to those items, then the tank was combat ready, and could perform it's primary mission. Anything else, such as paint jobs, engine smoke, or properly stenciled markings was of secondary concern, were nice to have, but could be taken care of later. Multiply this x54 (or x57 depending on whether or not a unit was using the "H" or "J" series TO&E) vehicles, and you can see where the priorities were.

Edited by Old_Tanker
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Godman_82 said:

Many, many sources that I've come across are wrong, when it comes to M60A1/A3 armor. Most of them are using minimum requirement (254 mm) as actual effective armor thickness, which is not correct at all. 

 

M60A1 had 354 mm of effective thickness on entire turret front, including the mantlet. And it is true for both M60A1 and A3.

 Thanks for pointing this out. I'll admit my imperfect description of the post 1973 War upgrade concerning the turret hydraulic fluid, and the weakness discovered in the turret "cheeks" was not as concise as it might have been, and may not have been very accurate when talking about the total armor package. These were just patches applied for a specific purpose anyway.

 

I do admire your research into the M60 series, and I really hope that one day we'll see your findings (along with those of others) incorporated into WT.

Edited by Old_Tanker
  • Thanks 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe we'll get an update on the M60A1 mantlet with the new dynamic protection system used on the T-80 and T-64.

 

Meh, who am I kidding? We'll just get some new shiny MBT/planes with more bugs.

  • Upvote 2
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope they put all or most of the M60 Pattons in one folder like they did with the M40 Pattons. 

 

What's up with the army people naming so many tanks as Pattons? I like how the British named their tanks better. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, LilyTheKitty said:

I hope they put all or most of the M60 Pattons in one folder like they did with the M40 Pattons. 

 

What's up with the army people naming so many tanks as Pattons? I like how the British named their tanks better. 

This is a good idea. Maybe one day... For what it's worth, we never referred to the M60 (any of them) as a Patton. The official manuals also titled them as: "Tank, Combat, Full Tracked, 105mm, M60, M60A1, etc." Now that's a mouthful! I agree though, the British and Germans had much better naming systems.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, JohanssenJr said:

Overtiered and not in the American tree at all.

US has one at 6.3 where it belongs and is in-line with the US vehicles up to that BR which are nearly all WWII vehicles, what's the point of adding the M26A1 for the US when you have the M26 and the M46? Just pointless whining imo.

  • Haha 1
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.