M60A2

>>32589701
The Gun/Missile system was completely fucking broken.

>>32589758
In what sense? How did it even enter service in such state?

>>32589701
The Shillelagh missile was the new hotness at the time and was projected to become part of main armament for tanks once the MBT-70 became a thing. In the meantime it equipped the Sheridan and the M60A2 but had a lot of teething problems that weren't really adequately solved. Eventually the MBT-70 was scrapped altogether and the M60A2 was quietly withdrawn.

File: A Duece in the field.jpg (315KB, 1429x1133px) Image search: [Google]

315KB, 1429x1133px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blxDBwzbHk4
Quick summary about the M60A2 and a view inside.

As >>32589811 says, the idea of tank-launched missiles gained a fanbase in the US military in the 60s-70s. Much like some elements of the Soviet Army did under Khrushchev.
In all cases they never really worked out. Missiles were complex, large (reduced ammo capacity on vehicles) and had a more complex loading process. Also in the M551 Sheridan, there were problems with recoil damaging aiming systems and the combustible casings not fully being burned up.
M60A2 was an attempt to remedy some of the problems: Bigger vehicle means more stability when firing, more ammo storage, and more room to load in. Still things never worked out that well.

It was decided that traditional guns were easier to make, handle, and use. After the failure of MBT-70, the Americans abandoned the idea and went wit the M1 with its 105mm gun.

They are neat looking tanks though.

File: 1412590043920.jpg (47KB, 340x371px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 340x371px

>>32589701
>beauty

>>32589807
Missiles are inherently less reliable than guns and Shillelagh had big dead zones.

>>32589701
The army wanted a tank that could potentially fire nuclear tipped projectiles.

WWIII Is a hell of a drug.

File: M60A2 Fort Hood 1978.jpg (2MB, 2880x1910px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2880x1910px

>>32590182

With its 152 mm low-pressure gun and its remote-operated heavy machine gun, the M60A2 would have been a good infantry support vehicle in wars of the past few decades.

>>32590842
The M551 got some use during Desert Storm and fired a few shillelagh missiles at Iraqi bunkers or guns. Possible some T-55s as well.
But they were mostly just used for recon.

I don't think there's any shortcomings for the M1 Abrams when it comes to infantry support. 120mm can still pack explosive power, or it has the canister shot, as well as machine guns.

Perhaps firing conventional 152mm ammo (Which the US does not produce) the M60A2 could have retained a role, but there's no need for it. It's more vulnerable than an Abrams so why risk it? Especially if you want to use it for infantry support, which means it will probably be in an urban area where enemies can get multiple angles with RPGs.

>>32589701
>was inferior to MBT, cost difference wasn't low enough to justify
>despite success in grenada airborne capabality wasn't important enough to keep
>obsolete beyond basic usefulness of having a cannon

my coworker jumped into Grenada.

>>32591168
disregard my post I assumed we were talking about the Sheridan.

>>32589701
I've heard from tankers who crewed these that the engine rattle would off set the guidance system, that and inexperienced gunners would often times try to "fly" the missile to the target instead of letting the ATGM correct its own course.
Mostly just underdeveloped technology for it to do its job well. There is a museum that I live a few hours away that has one in working condition, I should check it out and post pics soon.

>>32590842
I always liked to use it as an infantry vehicle in wargame RD. Sucks at everything else though.