Why was this allowed to be the MBT of America for so long when

>>34668164
The Chief had its own problems, notably the engine was pretty shit. Shoehorn an AVDS 1790 into it and it'd be breddy gud.
Best tank at the time hands down was the T-64 though, and I say that as a unapologetic Freeaboo.

>>34668201
Only problem is that the t-64 was too costly and too far ahead of its time and there wasn't enough of them to make a difference. M60 wasnt that good, but there were lots of them and they had good fire control systems and were pretty good for maintenance and reliability.

>>34668164

>That far too obvious reverse bait to try and drive the wedge on US and UK

>>34668164
Because the U.S. prioritizes naval and air power. Having the latest and greatest MBT hasn't always been a priority. Plus the M60 w/ the 105mm L7 was still very potent in many circumstances.

>>34668164
Same reasons Americans chose the M14 when the FAL was better in every way. American military procurement isn't about effectiveness, it's about greasing the wheels of corruption (every successful American military industry company has ins on the general leadership)

>>34668375
Cry me a river pussy. Come back when your military is #1 (;

File: ONeill_Vault_Crop_Legging.webm (2MB, 404x720px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 404x720px

>>34668164
What are tanks used for today other than fascist parades?

>>34668164
>Why was this allowed to be the MBT of America for so long

Because

>when it's so bad?

never mind, you were not asking seriously.

File: image.jpg (21KB, 534x400px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 534x400px

>>34668164

>>34668201
The T-64 had engine troubles like the Chieftain.

>>34668164
It was reliable, affordable and had good enough armor, firepower and mobility to do its job.

Tanks are important, but they dont decide everything. A country like the US that bases its doctrine on airpower and logistics doesn't need a tank with the thickest armor, or the biggest gun.

>>34669267
Wasn't he talkin' bout the Centurion or something?

>>34669323
To add.

Of all its contemporaries the M60 was one of the better tanks. The Cheftain and T64 had good armor and firepower, but extremely unreliable engines that would cripple it in any kind of maneuver warfare. The Leopard had an effective gun and amazing mobility, but for all intents and purposes didn't have armor until later upgrades. The T72 and the M60 are my personal picks for best tank of the 60s-70s.

>>34669323
>It was reliable, affordable and had good enough armor, firepower and mobility to do its job.
plus they tried to replace it twice before the abrams finally superseded it. it was allowed to be the american mbt for so long because they kept fucking up the replacements

M60 performed well against T-55's, T-62's, and T-72's in Israeli hands

>>34669289
However, unlike the L60, the 5TD's gremlins were fixed by the 70s.

The only big problem of the M60 IMO is the absolutely retarded turret tumor.

>>34668463

Serious question, what kind of asshole tries to squeeze in and get around a military convoy? I know they're slow, but the armor has limited visibility and you're asking for hurt if you try to cut a tank off, yes?

>>34668453
Some upgraded to 'Sabra' by Israeli Military Industries. Contract was signed on March 29, 2002, estimated to be worth $688 million USD.

170 of them upgraded for 680 mil, that means 4 mil a piece. Did Israel transfer tech?

The Dutch sold 116 Leopard 2A6 tanks for 200 mil to Finland which comes down to 1.73 mil a piece.

Can someone please explain the logic in this? Was this a way of obtaining technology to upgrade their own tanks on their own or building their own tanks like they are doing with their Altay tank?
The Turks could have gotten shitload of more used Leo 2A4 and A6's, other used tanks or even new tanks at this price. This just really baffles me, hope someone clearify this, thanks.

>>34670425
>yfw the tanks were forced over into traffic by road construction

>>34668164
I used to train troops on the M-60A1-A2E1,E2 they were both great turrets and the chassis was well proven this BS about the Chieftan is BS from euro-winnies who have never seen action beyond the local bachi-boys

>>34670425
Because the tanks drive on the right side of the highway so traffic can pass on the left but if you used your eyes you could see there are road works so traffic got forced into 1 lane. And why would a tank cut you off on the highway? The driver gets told to drive as straight and smooth as possible and does not make abrupt movements. Also the commander and/or loader/gunner etc look around and if needed signal the public and/or tell tank drivers what to do. Also its officially not a convoy, no flags etc so people are not doing anything illegal. Atleast not according to German law, no idea what the rules are in the USA. I have driven the PZH2000 many times on highways and even inside urban settings and its not that hard really, just have to use common sense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtFTGr6YPSw

>>34668375
>FAL
>better
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

>>34670435
Probably easier to get spare parts and their maintenance crews are probably more familiar with the chassis

>>34670575
The Turks have minus the ones they lost in Syria 340 Leopard 2A4s. So the Leopard 2 is not a new tank for them, I can understand the spare part logic tho. Seeing how sjw Germany is and literally refusing to sell arms because muh human rights.

>>34670435
Dutch sale was basically handout to Finland to give a much needed boost for when Russia decides to get back their rightful clay. Look at weapon sales to Finland from any NATO country and you might see a pattern (or fake news).
Israel made profit with that sale, if that 668m is not adjusted for inflation it's actually even more per tank.

>>34670661
The Dutch sale was due to budget cuts, they literally sold off all their Leo 2 tanks. So yes the Fins might have gotten a good deal(handout) but still, used Leo 2s go for around 2 mil including spares.

Ofcourse Israel made profit but what was the reason for the Turks to sign such a deal?

>>34670566
>i played CoD and the M14 was the beset
two years of service. the few old farts who couldnt get over muh wood and steel didn't have one that cracked an op rod.

>>34670707
2002 was such a long time ago that I can't remember how liked Turks were politically and I can't be arsed to research.

Maybe Germany would not give them tanks on loan money or it was deemed somewhat more cost effective to update M60s than get more Leo's. Or it was effort to diversify their tank suppliers somewhat.

>>34670602
>>34670845
In 2005 Turkey ordered 298 Leopard 2 tanks from German army stocks. The Leopard 2 was already chosen in 2001 after successfully competing one year earlier in the Turkish army trials against the T-84 Yatagan, Leclerc and a version of the M1A2 Abrams fitted with a German MTU diesel engine. Turkey already wanted to buy 1,000 Leopard 2 tanks in 1999, but the German government rejected such deal.

Turkey was friendly to the EU and USA back then and would had become the biggest Leo2 operator but some opposition parties were worried that these tanks would be used against the Kurds and what not so the deal never happened and Turkey only got 350. It seems the Sabra deal is some sort of stop gap solution or maybe like someone stated before a way of getting a proper fire control system tech and what not. Contrary to what most believe Israel and Turkey are really on good terms and their militaries train together and Israel upgraded many systems before like the F4.

Sadly German politics loves to tighten the noose on its weapon producers. Saudi Arabia wanted to buy 800 Leopard 2A7s at a price of 10million each including spares. But again the deal got blocked.

TLDR: Turkey wanted more Leo2 but Germany said no so they needed a stop gap solution.

>>34670972
>so they needed a stop gap solution.

How do 170 upgraded m60s fill the role of 700 leopard 2 tanks?

>>34670992
Times change, doctrines change and money. Probably some general got bribed and the next one was like oh we dont need this many.

>>34669624
Really this for the "why so long?" part of OP's question. The US spent a lot of time trying to move past the M60, but since we were tied to NATO it meant our tanks all had to play with at least two nation's separate requirements.

>>34668261
>implying wedging the U.K. and USA apart matters on a Burmese beadwork forum

all these pictures made me think of this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAXDWjXsvzw

File: Deir Ez Zor.jpg (183KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 960x720px

>>34668457
For killing IS and Nusra fascists in Syria, for example.

File: 1501012104079.jpg (26KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 480x480px

>>34668457
The same thing every other piece of military equipment is doing, killing mudslimes or sitting at home looking good. What the fuck are you expecting, for tanks to roll into other countries looking to kill people when no one's at war?

>>34671306
Holy fuck they're STILL holding on?

>>34671421
Yes, and (hopefully) they'll soon get relieved by the Tigers, who are now just south of Raqqa.

>>34670566
The M14 was essentially a cost saving measure. They were set up to make Garands and didn't want to have to pay to change, and they were initially sold on the idea that they could act as an LMG as well. Except neither idea panned out, and they had to update their manufacturing anyway.

The M14 was way too light for a select fire battle rifle, and the gas system and layout made it worse. Ergos are nice for a semiauto and really its a matter of preference between it and the FAL there, but in full auto they make the already bad recoil problem worse.
Honestly this is a problem for every select fire battle rifle, but if you're insisting on that role, you might as well have it usable. The FAL isn't as controllable as an assault rifle by a long shot, but at least its usable.

The trigger and iron sights are better on the M14, but the FAL is easier to manufacture, maintain and control.

>>34670435
Well keep in mind that Turkey has around 3500-4000 M46-M47-M48's stored in the depots and has around 1500 M60's. So it's basically a spare part depot right now. And also a Sabra if used by a competent and experienced crew could hold it's ground against the much, much more advanced Abrams. Also Leopards tend to be more of a liability than an advantage in Turkish mountanious terrain or the Arabic desert. Only place Leopards would be superior is if they are used against Greece in an offensive manner (M60 is still a better defensive/dig-in tank) and chances Turkey attacks Greece is about the same as Russia nuking the US.

>>34669707
Israelis could utilize M8 Greyhounds against T-80s and still win desu.

>>34668416

Why are you proud of living under a regime that is better at stealing your money for a military boondoggle that doesn't benefit you?

>>34671801
>The M14 was way too light for a select fire battle rifle
I had heard the M14 was too heavy to be a battle rifle?

>>34672594
Schrodinger's rifle?

>>34672604
Well it was from reading reasons why the M16 became the service rifle in WWII and the M14 was relegated to being a marksman rifle.

>>34672617
Vietnam I should say. I believe I have also drunk too much

>>34668375
*AR-10

>>34668164
The M60 was a great tank. It was reliable, had thermals and was pretty easy to upgrade. RHA was made obsolete sure, but even in the late cold war the M68 gun was adequate. Perhaps though. it would have been good if the MBT-70 program were to be more successful.

>>34668457
Their role is to support the infantry.

File: FAL 1.jpg (654KB, 2460x3280px) Image search: [Google]

654KB, 2460x3280px

>>34670566

Yes, better

>>34672958
No it wasn't.
>thermals
Unrelated to tank design, came in 80's.
>reliable
After several upgrades.
That said, all those upgrades weren't drastic at all, so I have no idea how did you conclude it was easy to upgrade.
It had mediocre protection, hydraulic system for turret rotation that had a fluid that tended to combust after hit, mediocre mobility, and it was very tall which meant easier to hit.
It was slightly better than T-55/62's, and quite inferior to T-72's, while T-64 would rape it in a very brutal way.

>>34670566

That's why the FAL was the 2nd most popular service rifle of the cold war and the M14 was only used by America and a few countries as foreign aid.

>>34669707

Israeli Shermans could beat Arab T-62s.

>>34673416

Israeli M3 Lees could beat Arab T-90's

It doesn't matter WHAT the Arab armies use, they will ALWAYS lose to non-arab armies

>>34668164
>>34668383
>>34668396
>>34668405
>>34668430
>>34668444
>>34668463
Could I get a quick rundown on that cupola turret thing on the M60? It seems like it could be useful yet it doesn't seem common among other prior, contemporary, or future tank designs.

>>34673548

It's a decapitation hazard for the commander.

That's it.

It's literally a NEGATIVE-ONLY addition that has no positives.

File: M60A2-drives-off-LARC-60-198510513-2[1].jpg (2MB, 2810x1860px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2810x1860px

Any Starship lover here?

>>34673548
You can shoot the anti-aircraft machine gun in an NRBC environment.
Twas a shitty machine gun, btw.

File: STRV-103 og Centurion.jpg (84KB, 595x316px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 595x316px

>>34669267
>>34669327
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtNwsjd7JHQ

>>34668164
Pleas don't bully the big boy, thanku
<3

>>34668457
>What are tanks used for today other than fascist parades?
For being good boys you retard

>>34674452
That's like being a Sheridan lover