Raytheon has a new plan of old M-60A3 Tanks.

They are certain that this upgrade package will make the M-60A3 viable on today’s Battlefield. Having homogeneous armor puts it at a disadvantage in my opinion, but I guess we’ll see.

I wonder if they were in service after the first Persian Gulf War. Wikipedia states that over 15,000 were built. Wonder how many we still own. Could be a formidable number of tanks to add to the Abrams numbers, huh?

They were mixed in with the M-1’s in Gulf 1, not sure about golf 2 though. The idea I think is for other Countries that now use the M-60A3 to buy the upgrade to help them against newer Tanks they might face, and spend fewer dollars doing it. Just not sure if the kit will have any real effect on surviveability in a fight .

I’ve heard there is a small group in the Army that like the M-60 series and consider it a better tank for infantry support because it fires a larger spread of ammunition, is more cost effective, and had better organic capabilities (i.e. the phone in the back)…

Some Abrams do have the infantry phone, I think it may have been part of an upgrade package like Tusk. The M-60 series L7 main gun had provided to it HEAT, APDS (old type, not Dart) HEP , White Phosphorus , and Fletchette (Beehive.) Though W.P. and Beehive were not stored on the vehicles. Don’t see why the W.P. and beehive could not be made available even though the 120mm gun has a Canister round in its basic load list. I was quit fond of the M-60’s which were more than viable aside from the weaker Homogeneous armor, and the high pressure hydraulic turret drive that would cause instant giant fires if hit where the lines ran inside the turret. (mostly anywhere on the right side of the turret. ) If we did the job right, the enemy would not get close enough to have a chance of getting a hit on us, but you know how those things go. One more little detail, I’ve read that some, or all of the Abrams will be getting a nice new diesel pack to drive around with, same H.P., better mileage, and less support required. Don’t know if it’s for certain yet, but it’s being considered.

I believe the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan slowed the diesel conversion project down, but I think it is going to happen…

I agree, the operational range will nearly triple, and support resources required will be greatly reduced. I read that there is also an automatic loader being considered for future upgrades. I have very mixed feelings about an auto loader though, some of the others out there have proven dangerous to the crew. (certainly didn’t help the T-72 at all.)

They might be a bit unnerved by the new Russian T-14…

Everyone in NATO was unnerved by the thought of the T-72 back in the 70’s, it turned out to be less than intimidating in the field. The Armata might be better than it’s predecessor, but it’s not made of Magic, so NATO is safe for now. They will have something new of their own fairly soon according to the word around the campfire…(not that the campfire is always correct mind you. )

I agree, The Armata also shares a platform with a new IFV/APC making it a bit more dubious in the “jack of all trades, master of none” category… If their intention is to manufacture them in the many tens of thousands, and expect to lose them as readily, (as with the T-34 ) the modular nature may not be a factor. But if they want to preserve their assets as do everyone else who spends fortunes in National Treasure to get them in the first place, then the modular thing will weigh against it. I feel that the unmanned Turret will not be a feature they will be happy with once it’s in the field, as the Turret by wire is a significant exposure to gremlins, and offers little back up in case they show up.

This mod being pushed by Rathyon seems like a more basic/cheaper version of the M60 Pheonix they helped KADDB do for the Jordanians - the specifications seem remarkable similar as well.