|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the M60 Patton article.|
- 1 Move page to "M60 tank"
- 2 Usage in Vietnam
- 3 Photos need explanation too
- 4 former users
- 5 Steel armour
- 6 M60 Combat Tank
- 7 Comment
- 8 "Performance in combat" section
- 9 Users of the M60 image
- 10 An Egyptian M60A3 on a street in Cairo, on 29 January 2011. Source: BBC
- 11 Dictionary: "Erroneously=Inaccurate, wrong, false, etc."
- 12 Recent use by Egypt
- 13 First Generation MBT
- 14 Relation between M60 Patton and M67 "Zippo"?
- 15 National Guard
- 16 Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
- 17 Poor mobility
Move page to "M60 tank"
The M60 MBT was officially never named "Patton". This name was reserved for the (M47 Patton I) and the M48 (Patton II) only. I've never meet anyone in active service of the U.S. Arny who called the beast Patton! (This information is for all who will not accept it - specially for User:Krupkaa2!) And the M46 Patton (the improved/modified M26 Pershing).
- --Care Alto (talk) 07:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree. I think that the page should be moved to "M60 tank", which more accurately describes it. The name "Patton" was never officially used and probably originated for this tank as a misconception that it was an M47 or M48. --Interchange88 ☢ 13:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Vote - move page to "M60 tank" or keep?
- Move for above stated reasons Interchange88 ☢
- This discussion fell by the wayside three years ago. Also, WP:COMMONNAME doesn't require the technically accurate name. (Hohum @) 16:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- I believe it was one year ago, and the point I'm trying to make is that is "Patton" is not the common name - it is simply nickname used sometimes, but not by military personnel, and "m60 tank" is used more often. Note that "M60 tank" isn't the official name, either. --Interchange88 ☢ 21:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Usage in Vietnam
Correct; ARVN's used the M-41 Walker Bulldog, US Army/Marines used the M-48A3 Pattons (and M60 CEV Engineer Tank and AVLB Bridge Tank); Australians used the 84mm gunned MK 5/1 Centurion Tank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 21:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Photos need explanation too
- It is taken from National Military Museum of Egypt. Located at Cairo Citadel. Its marking can be found here. --Wrightbus (talk) 10:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I have a question about that as well. If the Egyptians operated the same tank...who's to say it's not some old, out of commissioned Egyptian tank painted up. Propaganda is rampant in the Mid East, as we all know. So I'd like to see a citation for the info in that picture caption. I don't think that's too much to ask. SoulBrotherKab (talk) 17:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- FYI, the Egyptians did captured that Israeli M60A1 during the Yom Kippur War of 1973, the markings and instructions inside were in Hebrew and English text (as is customary of IDF's SOP). As for the Egyptian Army operating the M60, it was only after the Camp David Accords of 1978 that they finally got their own M60 Pattons, F-4 Phantom IIs and other weaponry supplied from the Americans in 1979. See the 6 years gap of void now? Hope this will help to clear up your doubts about the so-called propaganda thingie which you raised up here. (PS: I reverted your extraneous but AGF edit!) --Dave1185 (talk) 18:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- That's fine. It very well could be exactly what it says it is in the caption. But doesn't it still need a citation? I may be new to Wikipedia, but I've done quiet a bit of editing so far (see the Pakistan Air Force), and know if you present something as a fact, it's gotta have a little something to back it up. Especially considering the amount of "so-called propaganda" that goes on in the Middle East (both sides, mind you...I really don't care either way in regards to the M60 picture.) If it's an Israeli tank, that's fine. But there's gotta be some reliable source somewhere in the intarwebz that shows Egyptian war trophies and shows that yes, indeed, it's a captured Israeli M60 tank.
- Otherwise, why can't pictures of Soviet-made tanks sitting outside US military bases/museums here in the United States say that we captured them in battle, or sneaked them out secretly from Europe or whatever...when in reality most of those were examples donated or bought from former Soviet/now NATO nations? SoulBrotherKab (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree. Based on the fact that you had not taken the pain to read through the entire military history of Middle east, and Egypt in particular. Had you read up on the Yom Kippur War, you would have known that the Egyptians were operating Soviet-designed and supplied tanks such as the T-54/55 and T-62. They captured that Israeli M60 Patton in 1973 and had it put on static display in 1974. While their first M60 was supplied to them in 1979. Remember the USS Pueblo (AGER-2)? The North Koreans captured it in 1968 and is still using it as a tourist attraction in Pyongyang. The facts speak for themselves. --Dave1185 (talk) 19:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- I have slightly altered the caption to reflect that it is a claim, not necessarily a fact. Hohum (talk) 19:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Another question, remember that I mentioned the Egyptian Air Force had American supplied F-4 Phantom IIs? Why didn't they paint one of those in IAF marking then use it as a museum piece and claim that it was captured from the Israelis? Simple economics, my friend. You don't fight with your own wallet over something you've bought. --Dave1185 (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- If you have a reference to what the museum says - which can be definitively tied to that image/location, supply it - which would still be a claim, but at least it would be a supported one. What I have seen so far is personal assurances and original research, which is why I changed the text. Hohum (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
The Pueblo doesn't even compare to this situation. 1) its CREW confirms the claim that it was captured, 2) reliable news reports support it, 3)even the US Navy supports it, and the USS Pueblo is still in US Navy registration as an active vessel. Seriously, if you're trying to question someone's reading comprehension skills, should've thought about using the USS Pueblo as an example. Hohum is exactly right. The caption is based on a personal assurances and original research. It would be like me taking a picture of an AK-47 rifle that I've come into contact with, post it on Wikipedia in the AK-47 article and in the caption area claim that it was acquired by killing the previous owner, a Soviet Union Army soldier in Afghanistan or something. I'm sure during the war, all sides had quiet the collection of each others dead tanks. I really don't think I'm asking that much here by wanting a citation for what the picture claims. SoulBrotherKab (talk) 23:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
When I served with the German army, it had no M60s. Only old M48s in reserve. Newer tanks were the various Leopards. German Wikipedia confirms this. Ondundozonananandana (talk) 09:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
The article writes:"The M60 was the first and last U.S. main battle tank to utilize homogeneous steel armour for protection. It was also the last to feature either the M60 machine gun or an escape hatch under the hull."
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 184.108.40.206 (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)
Comment made in post "they burn". I don't feel this is a accurate comment on the M60 series,all first generation tanks suffered from the same problem,the ammunition was inside the crew compartment.Thus if the hull or turret was penetrated,a massive fire could ensue due to the propellant brewing up.While it is also true that the electo-hydraulic turret system could also cause a fire if the hydraulic lines were severed.Safn1949 (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
"Performance in combat" section
Just thought I'd point this out, but the last two paragraphs of this section relate to the M60 in popular culture and a civilian incident, neither of which have anything to do with the vehicle's combat history. These should probably go to a new section Masterblooregard (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree. The last two paragraphs really don't belong in this section. The first of these two paragraphs deals more with the M47 and M48 use in films and doesn't belong in an article about the M60 at all. BuzzardHB (talk) 12:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)BuzzardHB
Users of the M60 image
The world map is incorrect as Taiwan is left out. I think this should be removed or updated - I have no idea how to do the latter so would appreciate someone to do this if they can. Thanks, John Smith's (talk) 07:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
An Egyptian M60A3 on a street in Cairo, on 29 January 2011. Source: BBC
The tank in this photo appears to be an M-60A1, not an M-60A3. The presence of the rectangular searchlight over the main gun, and the lack of a crosswind sensor on the rear of the turret would tend to bear this out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 18:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Dictionary: "Erroneously=Inaccurate, wrong, false, etc."
The current article states in the first paragraph "(but was never offically named)... the M60 Patton tank..." Thats a bit awkward as it can also read that the tank was never officially named. Well, it was officially named; the 105mm gun full tracked M60 Combat Tank, and this is sourced and is so noted by Hunnicutt (all Patton tanks were 90mm gun tanks; the A5 was up-gunned to 105mm to meet the new M60 MBT & M1 Abrams standards which saved the Army money...in not having to buy more M60 or M1 tanks; another words the up-gunned Pattons became cheap Main Battle Tanks). The article in the past at one time did read "erroneously called the M60 Patton" and this was changed to its current "(but was never officially named)". This was an acceptable compromise, until the current reading sounded like a double meaning (although it wasn't intended to).
So now the focus is again back onto the definition of "erroneously" called an M60 Patton. Discussion: If the Winchester model 1894 lever-action repeating rifle (which was 30-30 back in 1895 when it was marketed...but was originally another caliber in 1894) was labeled by "Hollywood" and mass marketed paperback novels as the "gun that won the west", would it be acceptable for Wikipedia authors to state that the Winchester Model 1894 was the "gun that won the west"? Well, it shouldn't be, because that would be an "erroneous statement." It is false. The US Army offically ended the Indian Wars in 1890 at the Battle of Wounded Knee in that year; the West was well won by 1890. So the model 1894 couldn't have won the west, the West had already been won YEARS before the model '94 hit the market! So what was the "gun that won the west?" It was the Winchester lever action repeating rifle in 44-40 caliber; the model 1873.
Same holds true for today's "Henry" firearms company, their marketing ploy (Dictionary: Ploy=maneuver to gain advantage) is (or was, unless they've changed it) the history of Henry Rifles beginning in the 1850s/60s. The buyer is (or was) "led to believe" that he's buying an original "Henry Repeating Rifle", well according to the NRA (American Rifleman magazine, May 2008 issue p. 26) the current Henry was created in 1996 and is in no way affiliated with the original Henry Rifle Company. Although it is perfectly legal (patents expired) and practically anything goes in the world of advertising, its still deception by omission (leading someone to believe something by not saying it).
So...the model 94 didn't win the west and the Henry's not the original Henry. Which brings us to the M60 Patton tank. The US Government (the civilian branch) and the US Army (the owner of all US tanks, the USMC gets their tanks from the US Army) did not officially call the M60 tank a "Patton." So who did? Most likely it was the same people that called the '94 the gun that won the west and Henry the original Henry. (Please note that the current Henry never went so far as to make that statement, their marketing ploy was "omission" , they did not make any untrue statements regarding this particular topic). The original name for the US Army's new M60 tank was the combat tank, the Army wanted to name it the MBT (Main Battle Tank) but the paper work had already began its process through the government system and it was too late to change it. It wasn't a priority anyway. Getting the tank fielded was the priority, this was the "cold war" years (the M60 combat tank was fielded in 1960). But everyone called it an MBT anyway! In fact no one called them light, medium, or heavy tanks in the 1960s (except in rare instances) they were all MBTs (except for the obvious M103 heavy tank which was used for target practice through out the land; and of course the M551 Sheridan Airborne Reconnaissacne Assault Vehicle, which also became a target after the Vietnam War).
Were people erroneously led to believe that the '94 Winchester won the west? Are people being erroneously led to believe that Henry is the very same Henry from the American Civil War? Are readers being erroneously led to believe that the M60 is a M60 Patton tank? Well according to the dictionary (any English dictionary), "erroneous"=Containing error/inaccurate/wrong/false. Inaccurate might be the best term to fit this "M60 Patton" controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs) 06:26, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
Recent use by Egypt
The section on M60 use by the Egyptian Army during the 2011 protests was removed as being minor/non-notable. See the discussion at Talk:M1 Abrams#2011_Egypt_Protests for more. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
First Generation MBT
The M60 MBT couldn't have been a second generation MBT because it replaced the M48 Patton which had been officially classified as a "90mm gun tank". The M60 MBT was the US Army's first 105mm gun tank and was intended to be an all purpose tank (suiting all roles; ref Hunnicutt) and titled an "MBT" (ref Hunnicutt). But as stated previously in discussion forums, the "paper work" calling the M60 a "combat tank" had already been set in motion so the name stuck.
For the M60 to have been a "second-generation MBT" the M48 Patton would have had to have also been an MBT, which it wasn't; it was a medium gun tank (90mm gun tank).
Note the "Hunnicutt reference" is lacking a page number for referencing. Possibly because Mr. Hunnicutt considered the 105mm gun M60 tank to be a first of its kind US MBT (and not a second type/second generation), the first truely unofficial US Army MBT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Relation between M60 Patton and M67 "Zippo"?
I was wondering, is there any relation between the M60 Patton and the M67 Flame Thrower Tank? The latter appears to have a similar hull and turret design to the Patton, the only real difference I can see being the use of a flamethrower instead of a cannon as the primary armament. Any input on this would be greatly appreciated. Orca1 9904 (talk) 20:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- The M67 is based on the M48 series of tanks; the M67 is based on the M48A1, the M67A1 on the M48A2 and the M67A2 on the M48A3. The original M60(A0) was loosely based on the M48A2, essentially being an improved version (larger gun, better hull armor, diesel engine) of that design. Therefore, the only relation between the two is through the M48.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 23:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessaryily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
- Triggered by
\barmy-technology\.com\bon the local blacklist
- Triggered by
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
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.126.96.36.199 (talk) 04:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
:Unfortunately, personal experience does not count as a reliable source, ans wouldn't constitute grounds for remvoal of that claim. 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)