Talk:M60 Patton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.

M60 Combat Tank[edit]

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)
@Rklawton:, 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)

Relation between M60 Patton and M67 "Zippo"?[edit]

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)

National Guard[edit]

Isn't the M60 not in use by the National Guard any longer? --Exodianecross (talk) 18:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

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 necessarily 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:

  • http://www.army-technology.com/projects/m60/
    Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

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.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 11:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Poor mobility[edit]

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)

: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)
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[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on M60 Patton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

M60A3[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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: [[1]]; 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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