Talk:Patton tank

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (general topics): Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force Related task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

Corrected the M60A1/A3 entry to show that USMC M60A1 Rise Passive was fitted with ERA. Marines never had the M60A3 prior to transitioning to M1A1 Abrams. Semper Fi. USMC1802 Thanks,that was my mistakeSafn1949 02:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

anyone up to adding the M46 Patton Tank?

Do we want a list of all the variants? Seems over-detailed; an encylopedia should only hit the high points. Lefty 15:11, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

Yes. This isn't an abridged encyclopedia. In fact, I think each variant should have its own article and illustrations. Rklawton 03:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but it looks like time to remove some of that to a separate article, the way "M4 Sherman" and "T-34" have done. —Michael Z. 2006-01-25 06:00 Z

For reference, I trained on an M60A1 RISE and crewed on an M60A3 TTS. The M60A3 TTS could out-shoot (though not out-drive) the original M1 Abrams. The M1A1 fixed that problem - the problem being that M1's were equipped with the inferior TIS site. The TTS site was so good at day/night fighting that gunners prefered it over optical sites even during optimal daylight conditions. Rklawton 03:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

HOOAH! Here you there, my father perfer the TTS sights over the GEN 1 TIS on the M1's. But I'd also like to point out the M60 never saw service in Vietnam, only the M47 and M48. The M287 CEV was the only variant of the M60 to see service there, and the M60 started service in Desert Shield then later in Storm.

I don't know if that statement is true. The Marines used the M47 and M48 in Vietnam because they didn't receive the M60A1 until 1973. The Army began use of the M60 as early as 1963. I find it hard to believe in 20 years of following war they wouldn't use it. I do know for a fact that the M60 was used in combat before Desert Storm. In fact it saw several battles in use with the IDF. Johnboy 09:46, 15 July 2006

EXCUSE ME GENTLEMEN, SLIGHT CORRECTION HERE: THE M-47 PATTON NEVER SAW COMBAT WITH US FORCES. YOUR FATHER MEANT THE M-41 WALKER BULLDOG LIGHT TANK WHICH WAS USED BY THE ARVN (SOUTH VIET ARMY) AND WAS ALSO USED IN THE MOVIE "FULL METAL JACKET." ARMY & MARINES USED THE M-48. 03/07

Yes,the M60A1 saw a lot of action during the Yom Kippur war,Nixon airlifted many M60A1's to Israel to replace battle losses. Safn1949 02:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The statement is true: the few M60s were at time reserved for the European theatre.--MWAK 11:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 M-60 in Bosnia 2 Patton I, II and III 3 M48 vs T-55 4 Origin of the M60

[edit] M-60 in Bosnia

Bosnia also use M-60.

So does Brazil, Spain, Gatamala, and a number of other countries. _____________________________________

There was some vandalism going on. Restored the missing text which was replaced with blablabla!

[edit] Patton I, II and III

Should we have all the Patton series tanks in a single article? I do not believe that we should as they are all very unique and do not have many common features between them. In fact, they are so different the only thing they all three have in common is a name. They all have such a distinguished fighting history that continues to this day (although not with US forces anymore), they should be allowed their own article. wikipedia has enough room for that.

Though hardly a typical splitter, I fully agree, especially as the M46 was merely a rebuilt M26. --MWAK 11:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] M48 vs T-55

Why did the M48 tank have a smaller gun calibre than say...the older T-55 (90mm vs 100mm) AND lighter armour (180mm vs 200mm) if it was from a later era and should be more advanced? Also, which tank would win in a one on one encounter?chubbychicken 09:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The Leopard 1 and the AMX-30,which were both made after the T-55,had armour that was inferior to the T-55,which could be a bad idea.

I would say the T-55 would beat the M-48 if it was manned by a well trained crew,the T-55 also has heavier armour,it has a larger gun, and it has a lower profile. Dudtz 10/3/06 7:34 PM EST

DUdtz do not pretend to be knowledgble about tanks - your lack of tank knowledge is demonstrated on the abrams tank talk page, while you claimed that a SHERMAN tank could destroy an abrams in a one on one fight!!!Mdk0642 02:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC) The T-55 vs M-48 battle was fought many times in the mideast,the T-55 had external,unarmored fuel tanks and did not survive well when hit.Also,I believe the M-48's gun to be superior in range to the T-55.I was a crewmember on an M60A1 in the 70's with the 1rst AD.We used surplus M-47's for targets and the 105mm HEAT round would easily penetrate the frontal armor of both the hull and turret,I have seen a HEAT round go completely thru the turret from left to right,quite a sight! I have also found that tanks in the 30 to 40 ton range simply lack enough armor to survive a head to head battle. One other thing to keep in mind is that Soviet armor was designed with a lower profile due to the limitations of the Soviet rail system.Their tanks were so small and lacked armor because they had to fit thru the existing railroad tunnels.The Soviet Union was a very large country and their armored units had to be moved long distances by rail.

There was also a debate back in the 70's and 80's about smaller,lighter tanks.The idea was that a lighter vehicle was more mobile and could make up for a lack of armor with speed and mobility,all well and good until that first round hits,then poof!This has been disproved many times again starting with the M4 Sherman.The losses were terrible against most anti tank weapons of the day.A classic example of this is the M-551 Sheridan,a death trap against anything larger than small arms fire,the VC 51 caliber heavy machine gun would go completely thru the M-551,not my idea of a good time.This carried on to the T-55,T-62,T-72 tanks that have suffered heavily against modern anti tank weapons.The 90mm gun of the M-48 would penetrate the T-55 and T-62 at will.Don't let anyone kid you,I have seen first hand the damage inflicted by the 90mm,105mm and 152mm guns of the M-48, M60A1 and M60A2.As far as this Dudtz guy,it is painfully obvious that he has NO first hand knowledge of armored vehicles,thus it is best to humor him like one would a child.Safn1949 02:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The statement that the M-60 outperformed various other tanks has to be sourced or removed, as it stands it just makes it all sound very POV.

[edit] Origin of the M60

In 1957, it was determined that the Soviets were in the process of developing a new medium tank, the T-62, with a 115 mm gun, superior to that of the American M48 tank. In response, an M48 tank was fitted with a new engine and later with a variant of the British 105 mm L7 series gun. This new vehicle (originally designated M68) was put into production in 1959, reclassified as the M60 and entered service in 1960.

This is contradicted by Steven Zaloga, writing about T-62 development:

...the program took an abrupt shift in January 1961 after a disgruntled Iranian officer drove his brand new M60A1 tank over the border into the Soviet Union. The US Army's M60A1 armor layout and its new 105mm gun infuriated the chief of the soviet tank force who insisted that the caliber of the new Soviet smoothbore gun be increased from 100mm to 115mm to exceed the NATO 105mm ... Ironically, the British 105mm gun had been adopted by NATO in the late 1950s after British officials examined a T-54A tank driven onto the grounds of the British embassy in Budapest during the 1956 Hungarian uprising.

—Steven J. Zaloga and Hugh Johnson (2004)
T-54 and T-55 Main Battle Tanks 1944–2004, p 11.
Oxford: Osprey. ISBN 1-84176-792-1.

Unless there's a source backing up the version in the article, this should be changed. —Michael Z. 2006-10-04 03:11 Z