Author Topic: M60A1 (Read 3025 times)

Ayyash · « **on:** July 30, 2009, 07:01:53 AM »

M60A1 MBT

Iran-Iraq War

Tondar-5 Wargames July 2004

June 2009 Wargame

Ayyash · « **Reply #1 on:** December 20, 2010, 06:50:39 PM »

So one of the interesting things i noticed from the Sacred defense week 2010 parades is that there are actually two types of M-60 upgrades shown.

An unknown type which has K-3 ERA, a LWR, and that weird box like thing that kind of resembles a static IR searchlight (i doubt that's what it is, but it's the only analogy i can draw).

The 'Samsam' has the same LWR - i forget the name of it, it's in another thread here though, that box-like thing mentioned above, but on the left hand side of the turret, not right. It also has something like ERA on it, but it's not K-3. ~~It actually looks like something i saw on an IRIA M-47 during the Iran-Iraq war, i cant find the picture right now.~~

Ruhollah · « **Reply #2 on:** December 20, 2010, 07:17:27 PM »

Iranian "Samsam ( صمصام ) " M60A1 upgrade with ERA mounting. The ERA plates, given their size, are characteristically different from those seen previously on armored vehicles in Iranian inventories.

Samsam is an Arabic-derived given male name and in literal terms refers to a sharp-edged sword. Common literary uses include Samsam Al-Haqq (صمصام الحق, i.e Samsam of righteousness), Samsam-Allah ( صمصام اللہ, i.e Samsam of God) and Samsam Al-Hasan ( صمصام الحسن, Samsam of Al-Hasan ('a), the second Imam of Islam).

Ruhollah · « **Reply #3 on:** December 24, 2010, 11:09:43 AM »

M60A1 main battle tank equipped with ERA tiles

comandantecarlos · « **Reply #4 on:** December 24, 2010, 04:34:41 PM »

Something like this should do it.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/m60_phoenix.htm


Merkava 4 Gun, Sabra M60A1 Tank by IMI, Israel Military Tech Exhibition 2008 -5	Small \| Large


M 60 - 120S.wmv	Small \| Large


Sabra.wmv	Small \| Large

Ayyash · « **Reply #5 on:** July 24, 2011, 10:42:07 PM »

New pictures of the M-60A1 deployed on maneuvers
[ Guests cannot view attachments ] [ Guests cannot view attachments ]

wasti · « **Reply #6 on:** July 25, 2011, 02:29:52 AM »

Why is Iran still using these junks?

They won't survive against any attack from normal RPG's.

Ayyash · « **Reply #7 on:** July 25, 2011, 02:58:42 AM »

Quote from: wasti on July 25, 2011, 02:29:52 AM

Why is Iran still using these junks? They won't survive against any attack from normal RPG's.

What you say is true; the gun is underpowered, protection minimal, fire control antiquated.

...but it's better then nothing, which is the alternative should they be retired.

nomad · « **Reply #8 on:** July 25, 2011, 11:12:23 AM »

I think this Tank may become too expensive to maintain as no spare part on market etc . But this is something that can be addressed by using tanks as scavanger unit , by dismantling half for spare part and to feed other half with parts etc . If ammo exist for it or Iran make ammo for gun then smaller active force can be kept . I make one alteration only to armour by putting composite plate around front arc and main gun . Keep the barrell the same and fire only HE round to close range of 500 meter.
But do this by relying on basic scope with low magnification and rely on close range for accuracy of making mobility kills against Abrams tank by targetting specific area of top of turret and track and engine only . A mobility killer ! Use only at close range behind defensive line or killing zone for enemy tank that break through the defensive line . Use in limited area in great numbers to take advantage of numerical superiority . Use only in area of heavy smoke to allow short range contact . Keep this units going until no scavanging part available . This still very useful device !

Numbers · « **Reply #9 on:** July 26, 2011, 11:37:05 AM »

No need to risk lifes of tank crew. Three infantry guys with Kornet ATGMs are better than under powered tank.
T-72S are the ones that will hunt Abrams from distance of 500 meters (they got barrel launched ATGM for it).

Lur · « **Reply #10 on:** July 26, 2011, 02:36:30 PM »

The M60A1 and even the chieftains are not Irans main tank force anymore. The older tanks are probably just used for smaller cities and towns, which really don't need to have newer tanks with ERA like on the T72S Iran operates.

nomad · « **Reply #11 on:** July 26, 2011, 04:01:18 PM »

Enemy tank must pass through many static defense line of Iran ! Through mud field , through mine field , through field protected by laser guided artillery and missiles , through motorcycle RPG units ! Is it possible to cover all Iran borders with this level of indepth protection of 4-5 kilometer deep ? Probably only in limited area but not all of it . So there is area that not have this level of protection . Also if air-force busy then enemy plane destroy a path through this defences made of earth and hit all object on the ground allowing tank to get through defence line .

So how infantry going to dig in quickly and predict path of incoming tank and dig trenches under tank machine gun fire ?What if tank change direction after meeting resistance ? How artillery going to target them without forward spotters in trenches caught in the open under tank machine gun fire? This anti-tank missile can be put on top of AFV and protection offered from machine gun fire of tank . So if Kornet anti-tank batter than gun of the M60 , then why not mount 10-12 Kornet in armoured box on top of M60 and use it like AFV . This way infantry can catch up with tanks and have some protection against machine gun fire , allowing them to shoot the missiles . AFV and M60 must be hidden in rear area from air attack and engage at last minute .
It will be super cool to be able to fire a few Kornets similtaniously at same or different target ! Can this be done ?

I mean from one operator or same FCS .

nomad · « **Reply #12 on:** July 26, 2011, 07:49:07 PM »

I could do this to M60 alteration .

(1) Remove main gun and Turret .

(2) Build shell around hull ( resist like 50 cal bullets)

(3) With weight saving , incorporate prolonged smoke generation equipment .( see note below )

(4) Improve TOW to be guided by TV in nose like Usraeli system ( sorry I could find no other similar system for reference ).

Note : I have said before that smoke can be resisting IR seekers and night vision sights by having additives ( graphite ) and also have metal particles to resist and confuse radar guided rounds .

The main tactic is not to resist main tank shells but to evade them long enough to make an attack . The hull being very light gives more speed to M60 . And hull resisit machine gun rounds . Tactic is to disperse smoke in large amount and then launch TV guided anti-tank through smoke . The Iranian TOW with wire guidance can be adapted for TV guidance in nose . Operator see past the smoke and signal not affected .Laser beam rider not work through hell smoke but TV , wire guided will .

As well as engaging and destroying targets within the line-of-sight of the launcher ("fire-and-forget"), some variants of the missile are capable of making a top-attack profile through a "fire, observe and update" guidance method;[2] the operator tracking the target, or switching to another target, optically through the trailing fiber-optic wire while the missile is climbing to altitude after launch. This is similar to the lofted trajectory flight profile of the US FGM-148 Javelin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spike_%28missile%29

Numbers · « **Reply #13 on:** July 28, 2011, 12:15:48 PM »

Quote from: nomad on July 26, 2011, 07:49:07 PM

(4) Improve TOW to be guided by TV in nose like Usraeli system ( sorry I could find no other similar system for reference ).

Note : I have said before that smoke can be resisting IR seekers and night vision sights by having additives ( graphite ) and also have metal particles to resist and confuse radar guided rounds .

My idea:
I would do the same. Except instead of M-60 I would use Toyota pick up truck. I would remove all metal panels from it to lower Radar signature.
I would put kevlar (plastic) plates on it to shield driver and back crew from bullets. Then I would give the crew Kornet ATGM and Igla MANPAD to fire from the back of the truck. Then I would cover entire pick up truck with camo net. Then I would put water cooling system in the engine. If water is released Infra Red Thermal signature is lowered for some time. Even better, I would use electric hybrid engine truck, so truck uses electric engine only to move, releasing no heat to be detected by enemy's Thermal detector.

I would make plastic camo truck with ATGM and MANPAD missiles on board and partially invisible for Infra Red Thermal and Radar detectors. Truck will be faster, stealthier and more lethal than old M-60 tank. Trust me.

Then we will use your "graphite + metal" smoke charges to hide the truck during retreat, that would make perfect tactical Stealth Truck.

nomad · « **Reply #14 on:** July 28, 2011, 02:33:43 PM »

The idea is good ! Very good infact , as Iran produces a range of Jeep and trucks that can be converted as you said . The only concern I have is the armour and soft wheels . In the smoke defensive area , a direct hit by tank round is very small , but chance of being hit by 50 cal of M1A1 and 30 mm of Apache is greater . If Apache empty 300 rounds into smoke area and 10% of them hit vehicle then this is still 30 round of 30 cal ! So wheel is going to get hit as well as Missile tube ! The same story with 50 cal ! So Armour of kevlar must resist 30 mm and wheel resist 30 mm hits . If this can be done then this solution is better for obvious reasons otherwise back to my solution . Does hull of M60 resist 30 cal ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/30_mm_caliber

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_cal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMPT

Armour of M60 is 150 mm , and 30 mm cannon of Apache pierce 50 mm of RHA and 50 cal pierce 30- 40 mm ! So M60 good !
Also TOW launch tube and box must be armoured and tilt up to shoot ( exhaust gas vented out ) and afterward tilt into body of M60 and become flat ! I still keep the machine gun on M60 for air defence against helicopter , or give it even better anti aircraft gun , or anti air MANPAD .

Crazy Ivan · « **Reply #15 on:** July 28, 2011, 07:59:10 PM »

So, nomad, are you suggesting converting the M60's into tank hunters? Sound interesting, but aren't they a little big?

nomad · « **Reply #16 on:** July 28, 2011, 09:49:01 PM »

@crazy Ivan

The basic tank chassis ( old tank like T55 , M60 , Chieftains ) can be used for many devices . If it is too expensive to convert the tank and there is better options in terms of cost and crew survivability ( given enough number of normal M60 , they can even confront modern MBT , but attrition rate too high and affect crew morale , so this tank may be too outdated( inferior ) to be called a tank ).
I think Iran can convert all old Tank to bridge layer or mobile Missile launch platform or AFV . This can be done by breaking up some tanks and preserving the parts and refurbishing and storing in foreward repair shops next to bunkers .This way no parts have to be made and money spent .

The suggestion of too big or small ? Sure a truck can be used if the conditions are right , for example :

(1) Truck can not practically be up armoured to take hit from 30 mm and 50 cal hits . So it must be used in low hill terrain and be used in indirect fire by use of TOW or similar .

(2) It will still face problems if it accidentally comes into direct LOS of MBT . So it must be hidden and move at higher ground.

(3) It will not need prolonged smoke equipment aginst tank , but a few air burst round aginst helicopters to launch MANPAD .

(4) It will need protection from Helicopters and carry several MANPADS .

But this conditions describe terrain where MBT have difficulty in going , unless there are low valley and flat terrain allowing this.
Where there is no broken ground or hill , then Jeep is useless even if it use speed and smoke . In this situation a vehicle is needed that can take hits from Tank primary weapon the " Machine gun " . Yes primary weapon of Tank is machine gun ! It will also need smoke generation equipment and MANPADS . The armour thickness needed is about 70 mm . Iran may have other vehicles also like Boragh that can also be used in this way . But why waste the M60 ? If Turret and main gun are removed then this tank can be lighter and faster also . Iran may end up being able to use this tank for another 10 years or so . around 100 units .The big hull may allow the smoke equipment and TOW and MANPAD to be all housed internal ( cool ! ) without any external armour addition and keeping it extra low profile .

Ayyash · « **Reply #17 on:** July 29, 2011, 02:33:53 AM »

I'd personally "like" to see the development of a barrel launched 105 mm ATGM similar to the LAHAT or the Thondar but with top-attack capability. While these are relatively expensive (equipping one T-72 with a full load of Thondars would cost the same as another brand-new T-72) in small numbers they are effective ways of giving a long-range bite to tanks like the M-60A1 or Safir-74/Type 72Z which otherwise would be toothless.

The problem with removing the entire turret is that you lose one of the most valuable benefits of the gun - the ability to throw HE/HEAT/WP/HESH/HE-FRAG and support infantry. Throwing a handful of ATGMs in place of the turret might make it able to knock out an enemy tank but it's overall battlefield effectiveness will be limited to just this.

If converting them into actual tank hunters, rather then just using barrel launched ATGMs as a stopgap, is the goal, then I think some sort of system like the BMP-T would be effective. Even still though, BMP-Ts are infantry support vehicles and don't have the capacity to maintain sustained anti-armour operations because they're limited in the ammunition load then can carry. I also don't think that the 30 mm guns are really the best choice, perhaps a 76, 90 or even 105 mm gun in an unmanned turret would be preferable - something like the Jordanian Falcon turret. Of course, this would require further R&D which might tip the scales back in favour of a the less desirable "cheap" option which would basically amount to re-engineering the BMP-2 turrets they already have experience manufacturing except with more ATGMs attached (as in the manner of the BMP-T or BRDM). Of course, I still think that being able to carry only a limited load of ATGMs really hampers the potential of any platform that resembles something like the BMP-T.

One of the primary advantages IMO with a turret-less tank-destroyer is that they could theoretically gain the ability to actually stand against NATO armor. Removing the turret reduces the profile and allows for much more effective fighting from the hull-down position; I don't have the statistics off hand, but I was researching the Gulf War and the vast majority of hits to Iraqi tanks by CF came from above the turret ring. The reduction in weight also allows for the re-distribution of armor and I wouldn't be all that surprised if the glacis could be made to resist some of the latests APFSDS designs.

Also, once tank-destroyers become more specialized, they also become more expensive (remember the example of the cost of the T-72s ATGM). Both the US and France cancelled their tank-launched ATGMs for exactly this reason, they were too expensive. Of course, this cost-benefit calculus occurred where there were alternatives; Iran doesn't really have alternatives. In order for a TD to be effective, it has to be able to reliably out-range, out-detect and out-shoot their opponent which means a full optronics suite with things like independent panoramic sights, TV sights, thermal imaging, processing computers, and other SA-management tools. The cost of these components often outstrips the cost of mundane components like armor and automotive parts. Here's another example, the ATGM-capable variant of the T-64 cost 20% more then the non-ATGM capable version with the only difference being the electronics required to fire the ATGM.

kyuss · « **Reply #18 on:** July 29, 2011, 08:30:53 AM »

Please set up a separate topic dedicated to Future AFV consepts and leave this one for its original topic.

Numbers · « **Reply #19 on:** July 29, 2011, 12:24:34 PM »

Quote from: kyuss on July 29, 2011, 08:30:53 AM

Please set up a separate topic dedicated to Future AFV consepts and leave this one for its original topic.

Here is requested topic, "Future tank designs". I have just started it.

http://www.iranmilitaryforum.net/index.php?topic=9593.0

nomad · « **Reply #20 on:** July 29, 2011, 02:11:13 PM »

@kyuss

Yes I accept I diverted from topic a little . But this was in response to idea that M60 was completely outdated in terms of speed and armour and FCS . I think I showed that Iran can modify cheaply and quickly to get effective tank killers with existing tech .

But back on topic . If we are only to consider M60 , then M60 has many variants and modifications . Are we only to talk about Iranian M60 in it's original spec ? And can not talk about suggessted modifications ? For example it was suggessted that a new 105 guided missile be made for this Tank . This already becomes out of topic ? Or if I suggest that instead of new round better change gun to be standard with Z3 and T 72 125 mm and existing ammo ? Is this conversation allowed ? $:-\$

kyuss · « **Reply #21 on:** July 31, 2011, 03:53:17 PM »

nomad
you and everyone else on this forum can converse about any topic you like. I requested that a separate tread be made to discuss future Afv concepts. I have no objections about discussing M-60 upgrade potentials. I like the Idea of up gunning the M-60 with the 2A46M 125mm gun and I would hope that if the Zulfagir tank ever goes into mass production that the Zulfagir's turret would me mated with an upgraded chassie of the M-48 & M-60 tanks similar to the
M-60 120S.

nomad · « **Reply #22 on:** July 31, 2011, 10:19:46 PM »

Iran has a number of different Tanks with various calibre of gun from 90 mm to 125 mm . It is relatively a small tank force . I think the best use for older tanks ( everything apart from T 72 ) is to be converted to 125 mm smoothbore gun and nothing else . The sole purpose of this tank is to become tank killers with no anti-personnel round available for them . It is far cheaper to equip 200 to 300 tanks with new guns than to make a new production line for each calibre of gun ! I think 125 mm is also the calibre of Z3 tank . So this move make standard this calibre . This move apart from being cheaper has advantage that in war time all this factory for different calibre can not be hit , because only one factory makes them . Also much easier to supply different tank forces with standard ammo . Other advantage is that already there is many missile that can be launched from 125 mm gun that don't need complex FCS that Iran may not have right now . Examples of barrel launched125 rounds are the

AT-8 Kobra saclos radio guided -4000 m range .

AT-11 laser beam rider .( This may give advantage of multiple launch or salvo and guidance by same laser )

Ukrain Combat with 5000 m range .

BM22 . Sabot round .

These are all compatible ( I think ) with T 72 and Z3 . Tanks that can not be adapted for 125 mm barrel , should be changed to gunnery practice and training until all ammo is finished etc . Then changed to AFV with Toophan or similar . If 125 mm too heavy for some Tanks , then a slightly shorter 125 mm may be used for mechanical balance . A little sacrifice in round speed is worth keeping the tank . Older tank may still be able to fire the 125 mm sabot round with simpler scopes and more training .
The manufacture of gun barrels and investment in production line for them will not be waste as it will give experience to making them for Z3 Tanks .

The slower speed of older tank and taller shape means also using different tactic of using in rear formations and greater number ( rear guard ) .

Ayyash · « **Reply #23 on:** March 12, 2012, 02:46:41 AM »

Inside an M-60A1, looking down into the loaders station; notice the resemblance to the Zulfiqar-1.

Numbers · « **Reply #24 on:** March 12, 2012, 05:46:10 AM »

In case of war with US, all metal tanks can be detected by Aircraft's Radar and destroyed by Hellfire missiles.

I would rather sit in Stealth Plastic Jeep with electric engine (undetected by enemy Radar and Infrared Camera), waiting to shoot back at approaching US tanks with Anti Tank Guided Missiles (ATGM).

While 400 T-72S will be waiting in small bunkers, hiding from US Aircrafts.

No need for M60A1 at all, 400 T-72S hiding in bunkers is sufficient amount to ambush US Land Forces.