M60A2: One of the best protected next to the Merkava.

FO Seaman

Active member
The M60A2 (Starship) was a flop with its main armerment and had turret problems, but its protection and armor where awesome.

http://www.toadmanstankpictures.com/m60a203.jpg
http://www.toadmanstankpictures.com/m60a201.jpg
http://www.toadmanstankpictures.com/m60a202.jpg

M60A2newone1.jpeg


M60A2newtwo1.jpeg


Alvin4.jpeg


Production of the M60A2 began in 1974. It featured a 152mm Shillelagh gun/missile system (with 13 missiles and 33 rounds). This new tank with a smaller turret was developed in the 1960s, but was not contracted until 1971, when the Army agreed to purchase 526 rebuilt vehicles with the new turret. This became the M-60A2 (the "A-deuce"). Armed with a revolutionary 152mm gun-launcher system, the A2 was also equipped with one of the first laser rangefinders ever fielded.

The gun-launcher could fire conventional ammunition with a fully combustible charge, or the Shillelagh laser guided missile. Shillelagh was designed to be the main armament for armored combat vehicles. The Shillelagh was a direct fire missile which was launched from a combination gun-launcher and was effective against tanks and fortifications. Its 152mm gun-launcher could fire either missiles or conventional ammunition. The missile was about 45 inches long, about six inches in diameter, weighed 60 pounds. This surface-to-surface missile system was designed to be carried on tanks and light armored assault vehicles. After being fired the missile could be guided to the target by a command system mounted on the launch vehicle. The gunner has direct command over guiding the missile to the target.

The missile was equipped with an octal shaped charge. The "shaped charge" was introduced to warfare as an anti-tank device in World War II after its discovery in the late 1930s. The Ballistic Research Laboratory, an ARL predecessor organization, made several important contributions to the development of shaped-charge technology. BRL scientists delineated the penetration mechanics of the stretching, high-velocity jet of metal that is formed by the warhead, thus making it possible to design relatively light, inexpensive weapons to defend against tanks. Guided missiles, such as Shillelagh, TOW, Dragon, and Hellfire, exploited the high penetration capability of such warheads with accurate fire at long range. Further contributions included the demonstration of tandem shaped-charge warheads and the application of advanced liner material technology that increased jet velocity and ductility and provided enhanced lethality within existing weapon system envelopes.

Sarcastically referred to as the "Starship" by its crews due to its complexity, the M60A2 was an overall disappointment. During testing, numerous problems with the new turret arose, and production did not commence until 1973, and actually ceased in 1975. Eventually the new turrets were scrapped. Phase-out of the SHILLELAGH/M60A2 system from active Army units was completed in 1981. The "A-deuce" was essentially a failure, but provided valuable technical research in preparation for the M-1s.
 
"Starship" was not its official name. As your article points out, it was a sarcastic remark. It's official name was the "Patton" tank as it was an extention of the M47/48 series also named "Patton".

The M60 was a good tank and did a good job in its day. :tank:
 
Charge_7 said:
"Starship" was not its official name. As your article points out, it was a sarcastic remark. It's official name was the "Patton" tank as it was an extention of the M47/48 series also named "Patton".

The M60 was a good tank and did a good job in its day. :tank:

Yes I know the oficial name was Patton as the M47 was Walker and the M4 Sherman.
 
Yes the M60 was a good tank in its day, superior to the Soviet T55/T62 series but inferior, IMO, to the British Chieftan and German Leopard I tanks.

What I never liked about the M60 though was its high profile.
 
Doppleganger said:
Yes the M60 was a good tank in its day, superior to the Soviet T55/T62 series but inferior, IMO, to the British Chieftan and German Leopard I tanks.

What I never liked about the M60 though was its high profile.


Well the M60A2 is a little different in than the M60A1 or M60A3.
 
Cadet Airman Adam Seaman said:
Doppleganger said:
Yes the M60 was a good tank in its day, superior to the Soviet T55/T62 series but inferior, IMO, to the British Chieftan and German Leopard I tanks.

What I never liked about the M60 though was its high profile.


Well the M60A2 is a little different in than the M60A1 or M60A3.

The M60A2 was a total failure. Talk to Kibbey on Tank net he's crewed on them.
 
Kozzy Mozzy said:
Cadet Airman Adam Seaman said:
Doppleganger said:
Yes the M60 was a good tank in its day, superior to the Soviet T55/T62 series but inferior, IMO, to the British Chieftan and German Leopard I tanks.

What I never liked about the M60 though was its high profile.


Well the M60A2 is a little different in than the M60A1 or M60A3.

The M60A2 was a total failure. Talk to Kibbey on Tank net he's crewed on them.

Yes i just wanted to say that, it would be crushed by the soviet T-72's
 
Snauhi said:
Kozzy Mozzy said:
Cadet Airman Adam Seaman said:
Doppleganger said:
Yes the M60 was a good tank in its day, superior to the Soviet T55/T62 series but inferior, IMO, to the British Chieftan and German Leopard I tanks.

What I never liked about the M60 though was its high profile.


Well the M60A2 is a little different in than the M60A1 or M60A3.

The M60A2 was a total failure. Talk to Kibbey on Tank net he's crewed on them.

Yes i just wanted to say that, it would be crushed by the soviet T-72's

I wouldn't say that, the M60A2 packed a nasty HEAT punch.
 
Kozzy Mozzy said:
Cadet Airman Adam Seaman said:
Doppleganger said:
Yes the M60 was a good tank in its day, superior to the Soviet T55/T62 series but inferior, IMO, to the British Chieftan and German Leopard I tanks.

What I never liked about the M60 though was its high profile.


Well the M60A2 is a little different in than the M60A1 or M60A3.

The M60A2 was a total failure. Talk to Kibbey on Tank net he's crewed on them.

Not true, and I know, my dad commanded an M60A2 . The M60A2 had the 152mm SHILLELAGH missle/gun launcher, also considering the M60A1 beat the hell out of T-55's and T-62's in the Israeli-Arab War, not only that but the 152mm carried a APDS round and considering that alot of the equiptment on the M60A2 went onto the M1.

Turret trouble and a bad air compressor that cleaned the breech and tube is what killed it the most
 
The lack of sloping on the turret is what aloways bothered me about my own country's tanks designs ... until the M1 came along that is. All iterations of the M60 had that same issue, in addition to a higher profile.

Someone posted a Slovakian modified version of an old ... I think it was the T-55. The same was true for that. Why bother taking an old and outdated design and try catching it up with the current list of MBT's in the world??
 
Cadet Airman Adam Seaman said:
Kozzy Mozzy said:
Cadet Airman Adam Seaman said:
Doppleganger said:
Yes the M60 was a good tank in its day, superior to the Soviet T55/T62 series but inferior, IMO, to the British Chieftan and German Leopard I tanks.

What I never liked about the M60 though was its high profile.


Well the M60A2 is a little different in than the M60A1 or M60A3.

The M60A2 was a total failure. Talk to Kibbey on Tank net he's crewed on them.

Not true, and I know, my dad commanded an M60A2 . The M60A2 had the 152mm SHILLELAGH missle/gun launcher, also considering the M60A1 beat the h**l out of T-55's and T-62's in the Israeli-Arab War, not only that but the 152mm carried a APDS round and considering that alot of the equiptment on the M60A2 went onto the M1.

Turret trouble and a bad air compressor that cleaned the breech and tube is what killed it the most

The 152mm Shillelagh was a piece of :cen: . Practical rates of fire were less then 4 rpm with the missile and guiding it was a *****.
 
No more different then the TOW and the ROF was slow, but the reason being was that the gun breech had to be checked and clean and checked again for smoldering ash. If the Army had done its testing and trials correctly it may have be one of the best for its time.
 
Cadet Airman Adam Seaman said:
No more different then the TOW and the ROF was slow, but the reason being was that the gun breech had to be checked and clean and checked again for smoldering ash. If the Army had done its testing and trials correctly it may have be one of the best for its time.

But it wasn't. It wasn't a good missile at all. Ask Doug Kibbey.
 
SHERMAN said:
The missile was a hazzard to the tank itself. The darn thing was way too advanced for it's time.

You mean is. The M551A1 Sheridan AR/AAV uses the Shillelagh 152mm cannon/Missile Launcher, a armor battalion in the 82nd AB still uses the M551A1.
 
Cadet Airman Adam Seaman said:
SHERMAN said:
The missile was a hazzard to the tank itself. The darn thing was way too advanced for it's time.

You mean is. The M551A1 Sheridan AR/AAV uses the Shillelagh 152mm cannon/Missile Launcher, a armor battalion in the 82nd AB still uses the M551A1.

The latter armor battalion has been retired.
 
Kozzy Mozzy said:
Cadet Airman Adam Seaman said:
SHERMAN said:
The missile was a hazzard to the tank itself. The darn thing was way too advanced for it's time.

You mean is. The M551A1 Sheridan AR/AAV uses the Shillelagh 152mm cannon/Missile Launcher, a armor battalion in the 82nd AB still uses the M551A1.

The latter armor battalion has been retired.

Not true. And they are used as OPFOR in training.

Initially produced in 1966, the M551 was fielded in 1968. 1,562 M551s were built between 1966 and 1970. The Sheridan saw limited action in Vietnam, where many deficiencies were revealed. The missle system was useless against an enemy that employed tanks, though the Sheridan saw a lot of use towards the end of the war because of its mobility. Sheridan-equiped units participated in Operation Just Cause in Panama (1989), and was deployed to Saudi Arabia during Operation Desert Shield. As projectile technology advanced, the Sheridan's potential declined and it was phased out of the US inventory beginning in 1978. However, the M551 is still used by the 82nd Airborne Division. Some 330 "visually-modified" Sheridans represent threat tanks and armored vehicles at the National Training Center in Fort Irwin, California.
 
Back
Top