Talk:M60 tank

M60 Combat Tank
The US Army Technical Manual (TM), also referred to as the dash ten (-10), which is (or was during the cold war) the operators manual for army vehicles. The cover of the TM-10 for the M60 tank said, "M60 Combat Tank, Full Tracked." No where does the US Army manual use the words Patton for the M60 tank.

Additionally, the term MBT (Main Battle Tank) was never offically used by the US Army until after the M60 battle tank entered service in 1960.

The M60 Combat Tank was offically the US Army's first MBT.

Request that Wikipedia correct the title page for the M60 tank to read "M60 Combat Tank", or "M60 Main Battle Tank." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.60.156.2 (talk) 20:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia uses the WP:COMMONNAME for it's articles, which aren't always the official name. The article does already note that it was called the "105 mm Gun Full Tracked Combat Tank M60" Hohum (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Secondary Armament was the M240B 7.62 MG in M60A3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.238.8.13 (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yet "Patton" isn't, or at least wasn't, the common name, either. If for no other reason than its ambiguity, I don't think I heard "Patton" used much when on active. Anmccaff (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Seconded. They were just called "60s" or by their modification "A1", "A2", "A3". No one in my units called them "Patton's", and the name wasn't in the manuals we used. On the other hand, that was then and this is now, and I think "Patton" has entered mainstream use. I guess folks just got used to thinking of "Abrams" and "Bradley" by name and assumed the '60s had a commonly used name, too. As a result, I have no problem at all with the "M60 Patton" article name, though I think "M60 Main Battle Tank" would work as well. I saw "MBT" or "Main Battle Tank" on all our maintenance and training manuals. Rklawton (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think it entered mainstream use so much as it entered fanboy and foamer use. Compare the ngrams for general English, Brit-speak and Murrican, and I think that points to this.  Britons like cute names for tanks, and love writing fan-books, while the only old nickname that we USAanians used was "Sherman."  That's changed now, and as you say, a lot of it is back-formation, but a hella lot of it comes from Wiki itself, and that is a Bad Thing. Add to this that Jarhoovians did use the "Patton" name more, and the USMC is, like the USAF, a publicity machine with a small fighting force attached. It's also worth noting that uses of "Patton" could be for any of the 46-60 series.  Anmccaff (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * PS: Of course, I forgot the Sheridan, but then again, most of us would like to forget the Sheridan.  Anmccaff (talk) 23:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , and all: any reasons not to move this to M60 Tank or such? The "Patton", as discussed, doesn't really belong.  Anmccaff (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That seems fine, but tank should be lower case since it is not proper or specific name, i.e. "M60 tank". -Fnlayson (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, move it to what? Rklawton (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) M60 series main battle tank
 * 2) M60 tank
 * 3) M60 main battle tank


 * I lean toward the first, because it covers both the usual (but later, IMS) MBT,and the fact that it was a series of vehicles that differ pretty profoundly. I think anyone who expected a (begin personal prejudice) real tank (/personal prejudice) might be pretty upset if an A2 showed up. Anmccaff (talk) 21:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Going once...I think this aminal should be moved, and we seem to have one-and-a-third votes for M60 series main battle tank. Any other opinions?Anmccaff (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

IMHO and service in the Army I believe that there is a jargon jumble going on here with the naming of the M60.

1. The name Patton- The vehicle was accepted and placed into service in 1960 replacing the M48 which was commonly called a Patton tank by servicemembers. Many of those soldiers in service at the time (1959 - 75) called the M60 a Patton because of its visual similarity to the older M48, and M60 Patton to distinguish between the two types during the overlapping periods of service. It was never officially such in any Army training or technical manuals. Remember the M48 Patton continued in combat service in Vietnam, not the M60 tank ...

As both the M48 and this generation of soldiers left military service use of the name Patton faded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.236.239.247 (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

2. Main Battle Tank - This is a term used in strategic doctrine and the composition of force as determined by the United States Army. This doctrine was not implemented by the Army until 1963, after the M60 was accepted into service. The M60 fulfilled this role on a strategic level. Again it was never referred as such in any Army training or technical manuals.

3. 105 mm Gun Full Tracked Combat Tank M60 - This is the correct and official designation of the M60 based on its year of introduction to service (M60) and its type (105 mm Gun Full Tracked Combat Tank). This is correct. 190.236.203.90 (talk) 17:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Poor mobility
The statement that the M60A1 suffered from poor cross country mobility is incorrect,I was a driver on an M60 with C CO 1/35 Armor for 2 years in the ever famous German mud. Based out of Ferris Barracks in Erlangen. The M60A1 would out perform everything but the M113 and maybe the Gamma Goat.It got to the point where they introduced the M520 Goer to bring us fuel and munitions as nothing else would work.I feel that should be removed.68.186.107.7 (talk) 04:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

If you can find reliable 3rd party sources which corroborate your story, then removal can be considered.
 * I'm not saying you're incorrect, just that we need sources to justify. I see this is the first edit you've made to Wikipedia (at least under this IP address), so I've left you a few links on the talk page to help you come up to speed on policies etc on how things work in these here parts.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello again.
 * I've had a look, and the claim is actually unsourced in the first place - as is much in the article. As a result there's no grounds for keeping it, and I've removed it after all.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that personal experience isn't sufficient for inclusion in the article. However, personal experience recounted in an article's talk page can be immensely useful in helping point editors in the right direction and perhaps boost some confidence when making an editing choice. To that end, I agree that M60s had excellent cross country mobility. I've driven them in deserts, forests, cities, and plains. I can say that only in swamps and mountains do they have trouble, but cross country - they're great! (and a hell of a lot of fun to drive) Rklawton (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on M60 Patton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120207132952/http://www.imi-israel.com/news.aspx?FolderID=13&docID=678 to http://www.imi-israel.com/news.aspx?FolderID=13&docID=678
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090418012635/http://kaddb.com:80/static/project2.shtm to http://www.kaddb.com/static/project2.shtm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

M60A3
While overall a less advanced tank than the M1 Abrams, the M60A3 did have some advantages over some M1 models:[citation needed]

The list that follows that sentence appears to justify the statement. Does the citation need to address those facts, rather than the assertion that the M60A3 had some advantages over some M1 models?

I know we need to use 3rd party sources; the following list appears to be a) factual and b) demonstrate the advantages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120mm (talk • contribs) 19:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * All the bulleted items after that intro sentence need cites to support them, since none are cited now. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I can vouch for each of the bullet points. I realize that's not sufficient sourcing, though. I think manuals for each of the vehicles would help, but those are primary sources. There should be an article or two in "Armor" magazine that compares the two tanks, and it should cover those bullet points. I'm not keen on using munitions in a bullet point since munitions can be upgraded without really touching the tank itself, and this is an article about the tank. The most significant of the bullet points is the TTS imaging v. TIS imaging. It made a huge difference in gunnery. The TTS on the M60A3 was much better than the TIS on the M1. This was corrected in the M1A1. Of course, the M1's speed, armor, and stability were much better than the 60's. Rklawton (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think those are primary sources in the bad sense, though. If fact, I suspect they're better than something like "Armor" which occasionally comes across as propaganda. Anmccaff (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Armor is written primarily by officers bucking for promotion, so yeah, it can be a bit "glowing" at times. How about "Jane's"? Rklawton (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I think the TMs themselves'd work fine for most of it, since it's a simple question of tabular data: equipment type, fuel consumption, etc. There's an Osprey book that has some stuff, too, but I suppose modesty and economics probably forbids. Janes is good, but also sometimes suffers a little from pressreleasitis. Anmccaff (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * One problem would be TTS v. TIS. You won't find that comparison in the TMs, nor will the TMs provide performance data tables (at least not the unclassified manuals). Rklawton (talk) 04:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I found a useful, but not really good, source from POGO: []; a lot of useful data, but a strong agenda behind it, with early teething problems overemphasized, IMO, but the fuel issue, for instance, rightly highlighted. A hatchet job, but one mineable for some good cites. Anmccaff (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the claim that "A can do X, while B cannot do X" constitutes an advantage of A over B needs a source, and the current source seems to be videos on the Abrams being the worst tank ever by Mike Sparks, including some of his false claims like the M256 not being able to fire anything but APFSDS and HEAT. HMS Dreadnought could fire torpedoes and USS Missouri could not, does that mean we can state outright, with no source, that the Dreadnought design had that as an "advantage" over the Iowa class? Herr Gruber (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course we could. We couldn't then extend that to say what the tactical virtues of using capital ships as torpedo boats are, or that this made Dreadnought a better ship overall. However it is within the bounds of reasonable editorial phrasing, not OR or SYNTH, to describe a feature which one has but the other does not as an ability.
 * However you prefer to edit-war and repeatedly blank a whole section, against BRD and other editors, when most of the items stated in that list are glaringly obvious and the majority could be sourced elsewhere. If one of them is wrong, then fix that, but it's no reason to blank a whole section. The TTS vs TIS issue is particularly noteworthy, as one of the few instances where "newer tech" didn't show an improvement in the field.  The lack of an infantry telephone was also particularly felt when Abrams were used as CQB close-support artillery  (albeit exposing a bigger problem altogether). Andy Dingley (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In which case you would be completely wrong since it is widely regarded that torpedoes are a disadvantage on battleships, as has been proven several times when gunfire caused them to explode and severely damage the vessel in question. Just having an ability does not mean it is a beneficial ability, that requires a source. And even the page noted that most M60A3s had their telephones removed while Abrams tanks with the TUSK kit now have them. Herr Gruber (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The list has been tagged for needing references since Sept. 2013. That's enough reason to remove the text.  Supporting sources need to actually be added to the list item text. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * And need to support the list's claim that these are advantages, not just that they are things that exist. Otherwise it's SYNTH since it's using sources to make a novel conclusion not made in the sources. Herr Gruber (talk) 19:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Features -exist- to give advantages.
 * No, a feature can be good, bad or neutral. Please promise me you will never try to design anything. Herr Gruber (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's unsourced/OR, has been tagged for years, and can freely be removed per WP's rules. And once removed anyone adding it back again must add sources for everything, see WP:V: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution" (my emphasis). Thomas.W talk 19:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Unless there is an existing discussion underway about it, perhaps. This looks like wikilawyering on top of personal vendetta.  Anmccaff (talk) 05:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, the rules have no such exception. If the claims that these are advantages (and not just that they are facts) cannot be sourced, they do not belong here. They don't really belong here anyway given very few other tank articles provide a random list of "advantages" that tank might be considered to have over the tank that replaced it. Herr Gruber (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Pereh
Looking at this, I can't help but wonder if Wiki hasn't fallen into the middle of a disinformation campaign. Every older vehicle will stop looking like yesterday's news, and be seen as a current threat, whether it is or not.. 20:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you explain your concerns a little more clearly? Is this related to a specific edit or section? Rklawton (talk) 01:24, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Steady string of citeless anonym-edits claiming that all the Israeli A3s(?) are being converted to missile carriers. Yeah, maybe they all are.  Anmccaff (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh, thanks. Ignore them. Without sources, just revert the edits. Rklawton (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Guard use
http://ciar.org/ttk/mbt/armor/armor-magazine/armor-mag.1998.nd/6aesch98.pdf

This is a fairly decent cite claiming that no US units have been assigned M60s for a good 20 years. (This doesn't mean there aren't some stored someplace, but that no units, active or reserve, who have trained with these as their main weapons for nearly 20 years. Are there any cites handy that say otherwise?  Anmccaff (talk) 14:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

M60A3 SLEP
I think this is notable, but the sourcing suffers, a lot, from pressreleaseitis. Anmccaff (talk) 17:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on M60 Patton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304104953/http://www.ghqmodels.com/pdf/24Morocco.pdf to http://www.ghqmodels.com/pdf/24Morocco.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927020719/http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/12027/limit/recent: to http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/12027/limit/recent:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Question: replaced or ?
I though the M60 Patton was retired for the A1 Abrams? the reason i asks it said it still in service on the Wikipedia. Ill see if i can get a screen shot of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MajorJared29 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The US has replaced the M60 with the M1 Abrams. There are [other] operators of the M60 now. Read through the Service history and Operators sections of the article for more details. -Finlayson (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Can anyone verify this statement?
I was wondering if there was any sources to verify this statement. "A single M60 purchased by Argentina for test purposes, stands as a monument at the Argentinian Army´s NCOs Academy, in Campo de Mayo, near Buenos Aires." Note: I do realize that the statement will need to be edited to have proper grammar if it is verified. Thank you. Dictonary1 (talk) 04:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I have seen photos, the ones I've found on the I-net are copyrighted. It appears to be an unmarked, unmodified M60. I believe that it was purchased by the Argentine government in the early 70s, probably for evaluation as a possible purchase though US Foreign Military Sales. But when the Argentine military coups began shortly there after, those sales were blocked by US Government, leaving Argentina with one M60. So it became a gate guard at the Campo de Mayo base.

Takes a lot of reading and hunting to find this out, however have been unable to get this info into main page standards because these are conclusions drawn from my own research and reasoning Chasnic2 (talk) 13:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Any help out there?? BTW I agree with Dictionary1 - the grammar is terrible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chasnic2 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on M60 Patton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160707165807/http://www.i24news.tv/app.php/en/news/israel/diplomacy-defense/140425-israeli-military-retires-patton-tanks to http://www.i24news.tv/app.php/en/news/israel/diplomacy-defense/140425-israeli-military-retires-patton-tanks

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

How many M60s in OPFOR surrogate role?
18, according to this .Obviously this is not a reliable source, but it does give a strangely definitive and precise figure. Irondome (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I have found a reference confirming 18, and have provisionally added it to mainspace. It is from Military Forces net. Unsure if this is a robust enough source, but this claim has been lacking any source for some time. Now we at least have a number. Irondome (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Just a check in from the Anonymous IP that has added a lot to this article. I provided that and many other details of the OPFOR(S) use. I served in the 1/4 INF as a mechanic and PLL clerk (MOS 63N SMOS 76C) for these very vehicles 1991 - 1992. 18 is the correct and accurate number of M60s maintained at the CMTC. 18 represented the typical combat strength of a Soviet/Warsaw Pact tank company. Along with M113s (1/4 INF Co A-C) to represent Soviet mechanized infantry companies in formations of regimental size and smaller, depending on the needs of the rotating unit. Typical training cycle for a rotating unit would be to railhead their equipment to Pargsberg, drive the approx. 10 KM to the CMTC at Hohensfels, spend 3- 7 days FTX training, then railhead from Pargsberg to Grafenwoehr for live fire and gunnery tables and then back to their duty station. They were replaced in this role by the TONKA tank (unofficial name) - a M113 with a mock turret
 * Bonus Info

Thought I would add more …


 * Why the surrogate designation?

1. The vehicles were not as heavily visually modified to resemble specific threat vehicles as their M551 counter parts in OPFOR service at the NTC Ft. Irwin.

2. Generic Situation Reports (SITREP)s did not mention any specific current conflicts or adversary countries. Instead they contained fictional situations of three provinces of friendly Sowenia, hostile Vilslakia, and neutral Jursland. The opposing force was the fictional army of Danubia. The 1st Battalion, 4th Infantry Regiment represented the "4th Guards Motorized Rifle Regiment".

3. The US 1/4 INF Regiment was given the TRADOC mission to "act as a surrogate aggressor force to provide tactical direct fire force-on-force training" at the CMTC starting in 1988. If you want be nit-picky about it, there were physically 21 M60s at the CMTC, these additional 3 tanks were maintenance floats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CIB2008 OEF (talk • contribs) 12:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

The wiki pages for the 4th Infantry Regiment and Hohenfels give some additional background. 190.236.203.47 (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for the additions to the article. Appreciated! Irondome (talk) 15:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Seconded. This is a welcome break from the usual form of IP multi-edit. Qwirkle (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

M60 AVLM MICLIC
I feel that is incorrect to list this as a specialized version of the of the M60 AVLB. Sure the photo is an example of a Guard unit deploying the MICLIC in training. But in reality the MICLIC could be mounted on just about any M60 chasis. Many M728s were fitted with the MICLIC. My point is that the MICLIC should be added as an optional component for the M60 series in the same way as the M9 Dozer option.190.236.255.187 (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.236.255.187 (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

M9 Dozer Blade attachment for M60
The M9 Dozer Blade assembly that is authorized as an optional component for a wide variety of vehicles, including the M48, M9ACE and M105 DUCE as well as the M728 and has been used on all of these different vehicles.

Following this logic opens a Pandora's box of equipment that could be fitted as tactical modifications of the vehicle...

Examples include the M58 MICLIC A wide variety of machine guns could optionally be pintle mounted at the loader's hatch Mine Flails,Rollers, Rakes of all kinds, Winching systems Snorkels for fording Searchlights etc …

The M60 was never assembled and delivered to Army service with the M9 already incorporated. These vehicles were modified in theater at Depot -30 level maintenance. Once placed as such on a unit's property books they were given a specialized Line Item Number (LIN) to reflect the modification. The reverse is just as true … Depot maintenance could remove an M9 blade from a vehicle and revert the modified LIN of the unit's property books.190.234.163.170 (talk) 21:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Of course the M9 Dozer Blade is readily accessible for sale to foreign countries as well for their vehicles.

So the point is that the M9 Dozer Blade should be removed as a reference as option for the M60 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.236.239.250 ¨190.236.239.250 (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The pic of the Blade Tank is Bravo One Tango later named the Florida Gator. Crewed by Staff Sargent Candrel (TC), Gunner Sgt. A. Jefferson, Driver LCPL Keckler, and LCPL Gorie. Two weeks prior to ground invasion a rake was placed in front of the blade effectively making it a Mine Plow/Rake. Crew could remove rake attachment to use blade as needed. - Steve Keckler USMC


 * I don’t think your conclusion is supported by the argument before it. Regardless of who puts it on where, a tank dozer is a different animule from a tank, and a standardized conversion should be mentioned somehow. Qwirkle (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Vietnam service .... M88
The current version of the article states that only the AVLB and M728 saw service in Vietnam. The M88 was there too …

Should it be mentioned or is it too different to be included here??190.234.163.179 (talk) 13:33, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * There is a link for M88 Recovery Vehicle in this article. Its details such as combat service probably belong there instead of here. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Details belong there, but a brief mention here would be useful. Qwirkle (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Variant of a variant?
The Patton main page lists several vehicle variants and their variants (m60 AVLB, m728, and m88). Wiki links are provided to all of these vehicles and each wiki article is well developed and documents these variants and their respective sub variants. I feel that these sub variants of the m60 avlb, M728, and the M88 should be removed from the m60 patton main page leaving their links to the respective vehicle's wiki page with the intent of streamlining the m60 main page and maintaining focus on the M60. What do you think? Chasnic2 (talk) 22:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. The coverage here is minimal, but needed. (The word “Patton,” however, is not.) Qwirkle (talk) 15:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Article too big?
Recently I have had valid and informative entries deleted from the article by another editor with the reason stating that the article is too big. Also a tag a has been placed on the article stating that it may be too long to read or navigate comfortably.

Is there really a size limit to articles in Wikipedia or is this a judgement call by the editor in question? I would appreciate it if the reasoning and sugestiones for improvement could be discussed here. The M60 Patton is in use and new information is available. Comments and reasoning would be appreciated.

Thanks 22:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, this article is at 143 kb now, which is over the recommended limit of 100 kb (see WP:SIZERULE). This is related to readibility and usability. The linked Wiki Article size page explains things better. Long articles can be shortened and/or content split off the related child article(s). -Fnlayson (talk) 23:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That's still no reason at all to be reverting like this. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen any major reverts to this article recently except the copyright ones a week ago. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:09, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Can someone help me out and maybe create an article M60 Patton in Foreign Service (?) and move the relevant info. Much appreciated by the local M60 fanatic Chasnic2 (talk) Ps this was all stared yesterday dec 20 by Dianna who added tag then reverted info and postings for m60s used by Italy in operation restore hope. Chasnic2 (talk) 01:56, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * maybe the problem is the other users section--- But I don't seem to have the permissions to create a sub article :(
 * I don't think in an article that's already 2,600 words oversize you should be adding an instance of a use of 12 tanks. It's trivial, and excessive detail. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 07:32, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you all for your responses. I guess that I am getting carried away with this. I will try to refrain from adding trivial details. I plan to try to condense the article with the goal of readability in mind. If anyone has any specific areas or sections that contain TMI (too much info) please let me know. One thing that I am considering is the Foreign upgrades section by creating separate articles for the Super Max, Leonardo, and Phoenix but I don't deem to have permissions from Wikipedia to do so. Also considering dumping the detailed armor specs in Armor subsection. If I overstep during these condensation attempts please help me stay on the right path by explaining where I erred.Chasnic2 (talk) 11:08, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I have accepted Finleyson's recommendation and created the following article EDITM60 Patton non U.S. operators and moved the section Other Operators to this article. However it seems bare. I chose the article McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II non-U.S. operators as a guide. I would like to add a similar table but am confused on the process. Suggestions to flesh out the article would be appreciated. For the time being I have not removed the Other operators from the Patton article as I a awaiting further suggestions and guidance. Thanks to all...Chasnic2 (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2018 (UTC) I seem to have made an error in the title of this new article and wish to reme Edit from the title but cannot figure out how :( 19:29, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've moved the new article to M60 Patton non U.S. operators and done some tidying up, and removed the content from the main article. Tables are tricky to build. So hard. I've got a wee sample mocked up at User:Diannaa/sandbox that you can copy to your own sandbox to experiment with. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

M60 Article Development
This is an open call to fellow editors -

At this point I feel that the M60 article is about as well developed as it can get. ¿Does anyone have any suggestions for improvement? If so, please point-out improvements as I have a lot of time to work with it.

Furthermore I feel that the article has achieved B class status, and possibly as a good article. CIB2008 OEF (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


 * just started reading it over now. It needs lots of work. There are a lot of issues with prose, significant repetition and all-around confusing layout. Unfortunately, this is not a topic I am too familiar with, so I can help with the prose but little else. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * - and any other editors

In response to the article being wordy and repetitive, I assume you are talking about the Impetus section of the article. This was carried over from another editor(s). I think it could be removed as all of the same info is fully explained in the article, thus making the Impetus section somewhat irrelevant. Are there other areas/sections that need work, grammatically or otherwise? I appreciate any input and enjoy researching this subject.CIB2008 OEF (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it's throughout. For instance, much of the detail of the development cycle is repeated in the production section. Just look for "T95" and you'll see what I mean. Likewise, there are multiple mentions of the change of the name to M60. Did this happen more than once? The impetus section is poorly organized - Questionmark III was before the Hungarian tank, so why is it mentioned after? And what does "General Taylor approved of a new tank development program" refer to, the T95, which the mention is buried within, or some other design to replace it? The entire M19 Commander's Cupola is confusing to me, and I do know a little about such things so I worry what others might see. There's an entire section about the MBT name which has nothing specifically to do with this tank, even though that topic is more than well covered in impetus. That's the first couple of pages, I haven't made it down the article yet. The entire article needs a good scrub and reorg. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * - and any other editors to read this

Thanks for the response, at this point I am going to remove the Impetus section .. and address the What? request. I do have extensive background with this vehicle from 16yrs Army/National Guard service and 4yrs as GW-11 Military technician. Also as a vetean I do have direct access to Military libraries and historical records. The thing that is most difficult is the frequent use of military acronyms. And trying to assume an average person understands all of this... If there ar tools that could help with military lingo I would appreciate the link (or a more appropriate place to talk about this

I have to admit that I'm not super strong on Grammatics, if you don't mind....take a look at the XM60 and M60 sections. Give me some pointers and Ill take it from there... are ther wiki tools/rules for grammar?CIB2008 OEF (talk) 17:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I would recommend not removing Impetus entirely, but it definitely needs re-arrangement. If I am reading between the lines correctly, there was a desire to replace the M48 since the ?III meeting in 1954, and that led to the T95 effort. Is that generally correct? If so, that should definitely stay, one could say the M60 is a response to the T95's "failure" and that would certainly be on topic. So let's start with that section and take it one by one...
 * Do we have dates on when the T95 really started? Was it before or after Hungary? If it was before, Hungary should be mentioned further down the page. And Taylor... it seems he was talking about something to replace the T95, which was dragging. And then in August they started the new program. Is that correct? If so, those two should be placed one after the other, not spread out.
 * So I you can clarify those points I think I can whip it into shape, and then we'll move onto the next section. It will take a while, but it's winter in Canada now so it's not like I have lots else to do! Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * - and any other editors

Ok - at this point I have rewritten and condensed the Impetus section and clarified the What? request. When you have time, further critique is welcomed. Its summertime here in Peru where I live with my wife. so that means lots of time at the beach.

What?
"featured a specially designed turret for the M162 gun/missile launcher that greatly reduced the frontal arc in comparison to the M60A1"

I do not understand what "the frontal arc" is in this context. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

the frontal arc of the T95E7 type B turret (used for the M60A2) that greatly reduced the frontal arc in comparison to the T95E7 turret of the M60A1 CIB2008 OEF (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 15 January 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 17:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

M60 Patton → M60 tank – As noted numerous times on this talk page (, Talk:M60 Patton/Archive 1), this tank is rarely referred to as the M60 "Patton". A search of The New York Times for "M-60" "Patton" yields three relevant articles. "M-60" "tank" brings up 164 search results (I did not go through all of these to check for false positives, but I expect at least a few dozen are relevant). Where the M48 and M60 are mentioned in the same article, NYT will typically refer to the M48 as a "Patton" tank and the M60 as a tank or "main battle tank". Mark Schierbecker (talk) 11:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed before (see M60 Combat Tank in the talk section) and apparently no consensus was reached. What do you think the title of this article should be?CIB2008 OEF (talk) BTW your request is a little confusing to me, you have requested that he article be renamed to M60 Patton (its current title) and the article has been titled as such for at least the last 3 yrs...CIB2008 OEF (talk)
 * Thanks, . I fixed the request. M60 Patton → M60 tank. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 12:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Inclined to support the (fixed) nomination. At very least get rid of the present name which is apparently a misnomer. While I don't think a search of only NYT results conclusively demonstrates "M60 tank" is the WP:COMMONNAME (and if you really searched for "M-60" not "M60" as stated above, the results will be off anyway), it is WP:CONCISE and WP:RECOGNIZABLE and apparently WP:PRECISE enough, as well has WP:CONSISTENT with similar articles, so go with "M60 tank" absent any proof there is a more common name like rather redundant "M60 combat tank" [as opposed to what, a flower-delivery tank?]. And for certain do not capitalize "tank" or anything like it. We've been over enough times by now that WP does not capitalize anything unless a preponderance of reliable sources (not just cherry-picked specialized ones) capitalize that exact same term with remarkable consistency (MOS:CAPS, WP:NCCAPS).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * NYT usually uses hyphens when describing tank models. I didn't suggest "M-60" because the Times is the small exception to the rule. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 12:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I also support with renaming the article M60 Tank. It does accurately describe the subject, is concise, and would not be confused with the other well known M60 (machine gun).CIB2008 OEF (talk)
 * Support move to M60 tank per SMcCandlish. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support move to M60 tank per SMcCandlish, although M60 flower-delivery tank is a darkhorse candidate and sentimental favorite.  C Thomas3   (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

M60 Variant description clarification
I'm new to editing on here so bear with me, but I wanted some advise on editing one of the variant's descriptions. For the M60A1E1, the description notes that it used a modified prototype M60A1 hull citing Hunnicut. The gate guardian of my hometown's Amvets post is actually the only surviving example of the three that I know of, and it is most definitely a standard M48 hull that they probably had to modify to fit the new turret. I have photos of the placard for the display even stating it as such, but I would rather ask before completely removing someone's citation. Any advise would be much appreciated. DerJager97 (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

You both seem to be right. 1. Hunnicutt does clearly document and photos of the original 3 test bed tanks of the M60A1E1 as being mated to the M60E1 hull- and this photo does show the turret on an M48 style hull. It seems that the hand rails and steps on the front of the tank are unique to this photo. Was this some kind of display that you could climb on/inside of? Maybe this turret was remounted by somebody in the past 60 yrs? XM66 prototype maybe ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by CIB2008 OEF (talk • contribs) 12:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

T-72s?
There's probably mistakes in page. I checked source: Nordeen, Lon; Isby, David (2010). M60 vs T-62: Cold War Combatants 1956–92. There's were absolutely nothing about 50 T-72s destroyed directly by M60s. Nor there about 30-40 T-72s. Also look, this page cannot provide clear information about number of T-72s destroyed, 50? 40? Or 30? Which is right number? I will indicate this on the page Bekbakbek (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

M60A4
The proposed M60A4 upgrade as detailed in the citations for the "M60A4" section emerged in the mid to late 1980s at the behest of the National Guard. The M60AX was a distinct project from a few years prior focusing on a new powerplant, that wasn't adapted but later presented by Teledyne as a private venture (see: The World's Great Tanks: From 1916 to the Present Day by Roger Ford, or Jane's Armour and Artillery: 1984). The assertion that the M60A4 is the M60AX, despite the cited sources that the M60A4 section was based off making no mention of it, or that the M60A4 wasn't the actual designation of the proposed upgrade, is extremely dubious. Please don't rename, make sweeping changes or add dramatic assertions that contradict the existing citations to an entire section without at least adding credible new sources.

I would greatly appreciate constructive dialogue on this issue. In the meantime I've reverted the M60A4 section to baseline, strictly relying on the citations used as per best practice. --NelsonEdit2 (talk) 00:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I am a retired US Army Officer with 22 yrs of service in both the Active Army and Army National Guard in both the Ordnance and Quartermaster Corps. As such I have an extensive hands on background with the M60 tank series. I prefer to use primary sources directly written and published by the US Department of Defense, Department of the Army and the United States Army Logistics Procurement Management Office.

First some general background (1975 - 1982)

Advances in the development of composite armor protection for vehicles proved that this latest generation of armor protection was impervious to tungsten carbide penetrators. This lead to the Army and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory to engineer development of depleted uranium as a penetrator material for future ammunition starting in 1975. (this info comes from the Picanny Arsenal). As no such ammunition with a depleted uranium penetrators was available for the 120mm gun, it delayed its deployment. This led to the development of the M833 ammunition as a stop gap solution to keep the M68E1 viable against the new generation of armor protection. To avoid delays in the deployment of the M1 Abrams and its advanced composite armor, an enhanced version of the M68 gun (the M68A1) and its M900 APFSDS ammunition that had improved penetration performance in comparison to the M833 and was fitted to initial M1s produced in 1980.

Next the M60AX Proposals (1982 -1985)

Priority in initial M1 Abrams unit allotments was given to active Army armored units in Europe. The Army National Guard's armored assets were key strategic elements, approximated at 3.000 tanks, and were important for re-enforcing Active Army units in Europe in case of conflict. (This was particularly critical to the ARNG 86th Armor Brigade.) Without an inventory available to provide the ARNG with M1 Abrams tanks, unfunded Requests for Proposals (RFPs) were circulated starting in 1983. Teledyne Continental took the first step and upgrades the power pack and X-mission. It was demonstrated and evaluated at Ft. Knox in January 1985 ... the upgrade has no designation assigned. GDLS acquired Teledyne and pursued the improvement to the armor. mounted the M68A1, and a name, the Super 60. It was the reference point for ARNG upgrade decisions submitted to the Department of the Army. $90 million was requested to begin a M60A4 prototyping and to complete the fleet conversion by 1989. It was not approved. In the actual report, the upgrade is referred to as the M60AX. Since the evaluation vehicle is not in the US Army Logistical system the requested components for upgrades were inferred to by FSCM.

References

M60 Series Tank Stall Test Jan 1985 - U.S. Army Ordnance Center and School

Department of the Army Historical Summary FY 1985 - 1989

US ARMY Federal Supply Code Management (superseded by CAGE Commercial and Government Entity) - They are used by the U.S. government to suppliers of defense and governmental agencies. They were used for used alongside the part number from the supplier to identify a National Stock Number, or NSN, record of a requested part or component.

US Army Master Data File - Under the authority of HQDA ODCS, G-4 (DA G-4), the U.S. Army Materiel Command’s Logistics Support Activity (USAMC LOGSA) maintains cataloging descriptions and technical information on equipment items in a centralized database called the Army Maintenance Master Data File (MMDF).

Department of Defense Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1989: Guard and Reserve - The actual Request for Proposal submitted in 1985 by the Department of Defense Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1989: Guard and Reserve§ — Preceding unsigned comment added by CIB2008 OEF (talk • contribs)

CIB2008 OEF (talk) 11:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

add M60T to article
i know, mentioned in it. but it deserves its own section in this article(under foreign variants). there is an article for ready to copy and paste. modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 15:36, 26 November 2022 (UTC) Cutting and pasting of articles does not meet Wiki standards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1388:80D:53F5:CCF3:BA5C:5CAD:86DA (talk) 09:11, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

M60T is the most modernized version that saw wars. modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 15:38, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

The Tank is already mentioned as the M60Sabra Mk II. I am assuming you are referring to this source

I agree that the M60T is worth mentioning and detailing its service, but it should be done in the Sabra (tank) wiki page 2001:1388:80D:AE48:6176:3A5A:4FC4:7EBC (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The operational history section claims that US marine M60A1s destroyed 30-40 T-72s
That claim sounds highly uncredible to me for the following reasons and should be removed

1) Weren't T-72s a rarity in the Iraqi army with the majority of it being made up of T-55s, T-62, type 59, and etc? It sounds unlikely to me that a single US unit (especially a second echelon one) would encounter this many

2) The M60A1 RISE is an inferior tank to the T-72M/T-72M1 so i doubt they would be able to engage them while taking this zero casualties even if we take into account the superior training of US forces and air/artillery superiority (unless those T-72s were abandoned and uncrewed), like, the very first combat the T-72 ever saw was engaging Israeli M60 tanks while in service in the Syrian army and the Israeli M60s lost and now we have a magach 3 in Kubinka D1d2d3d29 (talk) 14:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The claim is supported by the source. The source mentions that the majority of the T-72s were destroyed by TOWs, but the article text is not misleading in this regard, as it makes it clear this was the work of the 1st Marine Div. as a whole. Loafiewa (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This article is about the M60, not the 1st marine division, so it should be removed or clarified. Also i was talking on gunner HEAT PC discord on this topic and the chieftain (Nicholas Moran) said this about this:
 * "OK, so the big Marine tank battle on the way North was between TF Papa Bear and 5th Mech Division. The only tank mentioned in Crusade is that of the commander of the Iraqi 22nd Bde, who surrendered in his T-55. There were T-72s at the airport, but 4th Tanks led the way with M1A1s."
 * So if the M60s did fight any T-72s they would’ve been stragglers the M1A1s missed D1d2d3d29 (talk) 21:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Also according to the chieftain (Nicholas Moran), TF Riper tanks during the gulf war had shit accuracy, during one friendly fire accident they fired 55 tank rounds at a convoy yet only destroyed 2 trucks and an AAV
 * Having bad accuracy isn't surprising given that the M60A1 had no laser rangefinder and a unit equipped with them is probably second rate, this makes me doubt claims about T-72 kills even more D1d2d3d29 (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey I served in the US Army during the Gulf War and will give you a first-hand of what went down with the M60 - instead of deriving comparisons to its deployment in the Yom Kipper war, referencing a blog stated as being in the 5th MECH Division (US ARMY), the USMC 1st Armored Division, and the Gulf War Coalition Force. As a general observation you seem to have three issues and have your own priorities and an unreliable source from a web blog. CIB2008OEF CIB2008 OEF (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This message is like a week old already, didn't you tell me you would send a first hand account? D1d2d3d29 (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

The gulf war paragraph of the "US service history" section needs to be cut down in half at least
This is an article on the M60, why the hell does it have so much text going on and on about achievments of the US marines in the Gulf war? That section should contain specifically only information on the performance of the M60A1 and the threats it faced, why is it going on and on about how marines took X prisoners and etc? I didn't know US infantry was composed of M60A1s, not only is this completely unnecesary (imagine if the T-34 article went on and on describing the combat and kills of every unit that used it instead of just keeping it short and only about the T-34), but it might mislead the reader into thinking this was an achievment of the M60 (when most of those tank kills as far as i know were done by marine TOWs, not M60s) D1d2d3d29 (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Just look at the "service history" section of the sheridan, it keeps it's topic focused solely on the sheridan and it's performance and deployment, it did not go on endlessly discussing every battle the 4th Cavalry Regiment took part in and how many kills they earned D1d2d3d29 (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)