Jump to content
Kev2go

M60A1 Rise Passive ( with ERA) & ammunition issued to USMC

Recommended Posts

Just wondering out of curiosity since the USMC had this tank in service until the 90s, and used it with ERA package in the gulf war, Im wondering what ammunition types were the being  issued. at certain time period 

In partiuclar what was available Circa 1988-1991?  would they have had the both the latest ammunition types introduced since then original m60A1 Rise PAssive came about? Like beyond M735 ,  such as the M774  and the M833?

 

Sorry just asking because i cant find this information anywhere and Marines have a reputation for hand me downs or getting stuff later than the Army. Would this also have been true for ammo relative to when the US army received those ammo types for their M60A3's and 105mm M1 Abrams?

 

Anecdotal evidence ive read points that they had no trouble punching through even Iraq's T72M1 tanks, and that the ammo managed to exit through the other side. This would point to the USMC having most potent ammunition available for fielding at the time for combat such as the M833.

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kev2go said:

Anecdotal evidence ive read points that they had no trouble punching through even Iraq's T72M1 tanks, and that the ammo managed to exit through the other side. 

Or the T72M1 was over rated. 

Share this post


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

Or the T72M1 was over rated. 

-_-

 

Or perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to with a response that makes you come off as you just watched the American History Channel. Overated against Something like an Abrams, Agaisnt an m60A1 ( depedning on ammo type)  not so much. Rather machine vs Machine M60A1 would be at a disadvantage. The Crew made the difference ( assuming they had good enough ammo to frontally kill one) as APDS like the M392, M728 or First APFSDS like the M735 would not be ineffective  against the T72A/M1

 

id expect a more contribution  response regarding ammo rather than dismissal of the T72, SInce this isnt about How good  or bad the T72 is, but rather Ammo types available for the Marines fielding M60A1 during the Gulf war. It was an example used to potentially consider the M60's were issued by this point more potent ammo. Remember M774 was fist issued circa 1980/81, and the M833 first fielded in 1983 by the US ARmy. By 199 These are no longer Brand new rounds. So likely hood is high that even USC they had these, but aim aiming for refelction of of Ex crewmen  and/ or anyone  who could show an excerpt of  documents for Confirmation rather than make logical assumptions.

 

Now below just to educate you on the T72 protection:
 

Spoiler

T72M1 was an export built version of the T72A Model 1983  built on Poland and Czechoslovakia simply that came around later around in 1987/88.

 

It was built to the same specs give or take. on IRL QC for some systems was worse than what was in Russian Factories.

 

By this point its Armor Array on the Hull includes the 16mm hss plate which was introduced as a Response Soviet Testing of the M111 hetz, which on its own has a bit superior performance a angled armor to the M735. Hss plate was supposed to negate the M111 at least up to 500, range.

 

M735 would not be capable of really overmatching armor to the point where it would jsut slice through to the rear with easy. would require it to be under 500m at very minimum.

 

T72M1 like the T72A Mod 83 has this  Hull armor composition. of 16mm Appiliqe + 60mm RHA + 105mm STEF ( plexiglass) + 50mm RHA and its angled @ 68 degrees

 

 

 

 

This would total to aprox RHA steel mm  420mm equivalent vs KE. The turret is estimated to have 480mm RHAE eqiuvalent vs KE ( save for turret Cheeks with Coazial MG areas which is only 350mm)

 

https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.ca/2017/12/t-72-part-2-protection-good-indication.html

 

 

 

Especially given this logistical report.

 

 

GUAWDV9.gif

 

 

By no means shabby, and again would make M735 largely ineffective ( CIA's own estimates put at only 22% chance to penetrate at 500 meters) . I think its a given USMC had DU M774 at the very least if not M833 by this point in time. T72 is not such a weak tank. It astounds me that there are people on a enthusiast Armor forums still underplay Russian tanks so  much.   What im really asking here is anyone can 100% confirm this? 

 

Any ex USMC tankers out there that cold give a shout out perhaps? that served 1980s- early 90s time period?

 

However lets not get distracted this is about ammunition issued to the M60A1 Rise Passive not about What you look down upon  is an overrated tank

 

 

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

any ex M60A1 tankers on the forums here willing to comment on the ammunition type issues 1980s- early 90s?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

M728 dominated until the late 1970s.

M735 took over after that, but relatively quickly followed by M774, and M833 from about 1985 on.

 

Not sure if there were generic US developments for the 105mm caliber after 1990 specifically for the M60 / M68 gun. The M900 was developed, but it's made for the Stryker can cannot be fired from regular M60s due to higher chamber pressure. There are also Israeli designs after 1990 for the 105mm caliber, and Rheinmetall developed a 105mm smoothbore cannon (which, as far as I know, was never adopted by anyone).

 

Generally I think you can largely trust the dates of introduction that are stored in the Ammo dialog in the Steel Beasts mission editor es the earliest possible date that such a round would be theoretically available in a conflict; add two years for a more plausible setting, and use older munitions to simulate a depletion of war stocks in a protracted conflict.

Whenever we discover inaccuracies in our data we correct them, and where we find dates of introduction in sources like Jane's Ammunition handbook we use them. But those DOIs are not of much interest for most people, except military historians and wargamers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea, but not "before" the M68A1. The question is, how many (if any) M60s received new guns. I think they're all on original M68s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Yea, but not "before" the M68A1. The question is, how many (if any) M60s received new guns. I think they're all on original M68s.

Its not jsut the PRessure affect the gun breach

 

if M60s would be  Refitted with the M68a1 i thought the issue is that the Gun Mount is also not rated to handle the Recoil Of the m900, whilst the m1 tank as  platform could

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not be so sure that M60A1's and M60A3's did not received gun mount and gun modifications during their service, it is very possible that the last M60A3's in service probably did received such modifications, afterall you don't need factory for such refit, but a military unit workshop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to recall reading a passage - was it in Jane's, was it in the M60's user manual - that there was an explicit warning against loading the M900. To me this suggests that there was never a coordinated attempt (=program) to retrofit an M68A1 gun assembly to the M60. Therefore I see no reason to make this round available to the M60's ammo selection dialog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The warning, in the M60A3 manual, was for tanks without a gun tube within a range of serial numbers, not model of vehicles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/12/2018 at 9:55 PM, Kev2go said:

-_-

 

Or perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to with a response that makes you come off as you just watched the American History Channel. 

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

T72M1 was an export built version of the T72A Model 1983  built on Poland and Czechoslovakia simply that came around later around in 1987/88.

 

It was built to the same specs give or take. on IRL QC for some systems was worse than what was in Russian Factories.

 

By this point its Armor Array on the Hull includes the 16mm hss plate which was introduced as a Response Soviet Testing of the M111 hetz, which on its own has a bit superior performance a angled armor to the M735. Hss plate was supposed to negate the M111 at least up to 500, range.

 

M735 would not be capable of really overmatching armor to the point where it would jsut slice through to the rear with easy. would require it to be under 500m at very minimum.

 

T72M1 like the T72A Mod 83 has this  Hull armor composition. of 16mm Appiliqe + 60mm RHA + 105mm STEF ( plexiglass) + 50mm RHA and its angled @ 68 degrees

 

 

 

 

This would total to aprox RHA steel mm  420mm equivalent vs KE. The turret is estimated to have 480mm RHAE eqiuvalent vs KE ( save for turret Cheeks with Coazial MG areas which is only 350mm)

 

https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.ca/2017/12/t-72-part-2-protection-good-indication.html

 

 

 

Especially given this logistical report.

 

 

GUAWDV9.gif

 

 

By no means shabby, and again would make M735 largely ineffective ( CIA's own estimates put at only 22% chance to penetrate at 500 meters) . I think its a given USMC had DU M774 at the very least if not M833 by this point in time. T72 is not such a weak tank. It astounds me that there are people on a enthusiast Armor forums still underplay Russian tanks so  much.   What im really asking here is anyone can 100% confirm this? 

 

Any ex USMC tankers out there that cold give a shout out perhaps? that served 1980s- early 90s time period?

 

However lets not get distracted this is about ammunition issued to the M60A1 Rise Passive not about What you look down upon  is an overrated tank

 

 

Why post when you answer your own questions anyhow?

Edited by dpabrams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/24/2018 at 5:55 PM, TSe419E said:

The warning, in the M60A3 manual, was for tanks without a gun tube within a range of serial numbers, not model of vehicles.

So basically they just had to replace the gun tube itself. Or does it mention modifications to the breech?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops, made mistakes.  The warning is in the M1/IPM1 manual.  The serial numbers are for the breech, not the gun tube.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I THINK however that I read a similar page in the M60's manual too.

 

Anyway, I think it's not just a matter of breech and barrel being qualified to the higher chamber pressure, it may even include the recoil dampening. It's not something that you casually "fix", and it seems like the M60 was phased out of the US inventory before such an upgrade was implemented fleet-wise. Therefore we don't list the M900 as an option in the Ammunition dialog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

I THINK however that I read a similar page in the M60's manual too.

 

Anyway, I think it's not just a matter of breech and barrel being qualified to the higher chamber pressure, it may even include the recoil dampening. It's not something that you casually "fix", and it seems like the M60 was phased out of the US inventory before such an upgrade was implemented fleet-wise. Therefore we don't list the M900 as an option in the Ammunition dialog.

It would be interesting to see the MWO for this change. I wonder if they replaced the recoil spring and follow-on bolts. Or just the entire piston assembly 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...