@Hanz Significant portion was still riding T-55s. 100mm vs 93mm not that much. Yes if we speak about 64 and 54s then yeah, composite armor on 64 and 120mm on 54.
Well at least you had better fire control system than all soviet tanks untill t80. But armor and firepower speaking soviets had a bit better 2nd gen tanks.
@Hanz saying this is just like you are saying the majority of tanks in Russia today is T90 but in reality it only comprise about 15-20% of their tank currently available
T-64 was probably the craziest tank for the time it came out. First smoothbore gun, 125mm at that, could had penetrated anything when it came out. First composite armor, was particularly immune from the front against other tanks when it came out. First autoloader. First cannon capable of firing anti-tank guided missiles and many of other firsts. They don’t make them anymore like they used to.
Not only the first autoloader but probably the fastest even now. I think it could load a 125mm round in like less than a 5 seconds. Thats better than most trainded human loaders. Only issue is that they didnt make it seperate from crew and didnt make a blow out panel to side in case of an fire so that fire turns into an explosion.
@@Slavkovic_Predrag Wow I didn’t know that. That makes it even more amazing in my eyes now. It was such a military wonder. Its lack of blow-out panels and ammo-safe storage isn’t surprising though in my opinion, considering it was designed between 1950 and 1960.
First hit probability over long ranges has been more important than armor or penetration power for NATO ever since the L7 cannon became a thing and HEATFS made armor irrelevant. Thats why at some point there were tanks with minimal armor and great electro-optical systems. Like OF-40 Leopard 1 AMX-30. Of course introduction of NERA/ERA made HEAT-FS a lot less relevant. But at the time of M60 was made battlefield had no composite equipped machines. It was a tank with an outdated design wave in mind. No one could have seen fin stabilization of HEAT being so dominant and revolutionary at the time. Which frankly was made by Americans. M60 when it was first made was a tank like T-55. But with further improvements like AOS and TTS and even SLEP variants it became more modernized and a tank like Leopard A1A1. Capable at long ranges with great accuracy and ballistic properties. An M60A3 TTS would see and hit a T-64 at 2-3 kilometers way more often than reverse.
@@larrythorn4715 cutaways like that aren't the best for making a 3d model. Best ones are actually are cross 2d section cut exactly in half like this one : www.google.com/search?q=3bm9+cross+section&client=ms-android-xiaomi-rvo3&tbm=isch&prmd=ivmn&sxsrf=ALiCzsbiyFgZDNGE1eo5lUafJpBzVfOAqg:1665786545076&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjawKm64uD6AhXklosKHfrPBkUQ_AUIFigB&biw=393&bih=745&dpr=2.75#imgrc=dS3ynO1axeGuCM
That 3d render of 3BM9 is from the Steel Beasts wiki. I know because I've ran across it during my own research before. Edit: oh, lol someone else already pointed that out, sorry.
Armor: 93mm at 65°, eff armor: ~220mm. Penetration of projectile: 245mm, penetration possible. It's obviously a simplification, but it works most of the time
LOL, real gunners put the tank in a targeting computer, automatic lead and the fire control system do the aiming, lead and elevation adjustments, the gunner just pulls the bang switch. There isnt this "imma aim for the left drive sprocket", like WoT and WT.....lol. The ballistics of the shell and physics take over from there. Where the gunner hits is barely up to the gunner.
@@bigbadaboooom No, its just how modern FCS work on tanks. Its not manual like games. The gunner isnt sitting in there like a WW2 tank trying to get the gun on target...its pretty much electronic. Maybe the Coax is manual, or if your using a HE shell, even then......the Fire Control system of the tank does the math for ya.
@@bigbadaboooom Dunno why he would lol. Its not like the tank is a dot on the horizon or anything. Real gunnery is nothing like these games, where we are aiming for drive wheels and hatches from 100m away lol. Real life, its load gun, aim, fire. FIrst hit likely wins. No one has time to sit there dicking around with a precise aim point for 20 seconds. THen how would the gunner know his change is actually correct? ID venture to say, no....the gunner is not going to countermand the FCS........
[1970’s NATO base in West Germany] “Been hearing RUMOURS a’ spreadin’ that the Ruskie shells can go through our Pattons. Happy to present to ye’ folks this simulation our technical team created to quell yer’ fears.”
Os tanques perderam. Não importa mais o tipo de carro de combate. As novas armas anti tanque derrubam qualquer um deles. Um soldado com um lançador nas costas ou um jeep armado com um lançador múltiplo dão conta do recado.
One thing I’m getting from all of these simulation channels is that MBT armour is actually a gimmick and waste of time against modern projectiles. I know appliqué armour and ERA panels can be added to tanks but it just seems that the armour is useless in a raw tank on tank combat situation.
It's a guarantee penetration with first shot whenever the shots are coming from the side. A frontal hit is 50/50 survivable so whoever shot first almost has a guaranteed chance to defeat the target with the second. That's why if a tank on tank battle is expected, tanks always carry a APFDS round in the chamber, it's better to shoot infantry with the dart than having a HE round in the chamber when meeting another tank and miss the opportunity to land the first shot.
It’s not really a gimmick when you consider all the hazards tanks face. From small arms, attack aircraft, ied ect.. maybe not so useful against Apfsds, depends.
M60 was a world class turd, we learned nothing from WW2. We didn't have a decent tank until the Abrams, and even then it took time to make it tough enough.
Over time I have gotten the impression US tank design was chronically somewhat arrogant, or poorly thought-out. A lot of effort spent chasing diminishing returns while largely ignoring the iron triangle and logistics aspects. I very much perceive the M1 (though even that also suffered from the trend in some ways) as an internal institutional lash-out at this continuous stream of mediocrity and constant surprise at the enemy's achievements. Though the penetrators did somewhat keep up so that was alright I guess.
This was not comforting in the late 1970s I was an M60A1 driver stationed in Germany.
Well your opponent was in the same situation, atleast most of them.
@Hanz Significant portion was still riding T-55s. 100mm vs 93mm not that much. Yes if we speak about 64 and 54s then yeah, composite armor on 64 and 120mm on 54.
Well at least you had better fire control system than all soviet tanks untill t80. But armor and firepower speaking soviets had a bit better 2nd gen tanks.
@@Pechenegus those 93mm are better than 100mm of t55 since they are angled at 65° compared to 100mm @60°
@Hanz saying this is just like you are saying the majority of tanks in Russia today is T90 but in reality it only comprise about 15-20% of their tank currently available
Its crazy how we perfected the arrows .From longbow to APFSDS .
We are perfected the pointy stick . From longer,harder,sharper to fly faster and further 😂
T-64 was probably the craziest tank for the time it came out. First smoothbore gun, 125mm at that, could had penetrated anything when it came out. First composite armor, was particularly immune from the front against other tanks when it came out. First autoloader. First cannon capable of firing anti-tank guided missiles and many of other firsts. They don’t make them anymore like they used to.
Not only the first autoloader but probably the fastest even now. I think it could load a 125mm round in like less than a 5 seconds. Thats better than most trainded human loaders. Only issue is that they didnt make it seperate from crew and didnt make a blow out panel to side in case of an fire so that fire turns into an explosion.
@@Slavkovic_Predrag Wow I didn’t know that. That makes it even more amazing in my eyes now. It was such a military wonder. Its lack of blow-out panels and ammo-safe storage isn’t surprising though in my opinion, considering it was designed between 1950 and 1960.
@@Slavkovic_Predrag blow out panels are a thing of 1980s, back in 60s ammo was with the crew everywhere
The T64 ,T80,T72 had the best armor and gun
@@Slavkovic_Predrag That's just false the T64 had a firerate of 8-9 rpm (7,5-6,5 seconds) slower than manual loaders.
Target plate was too small
Just like when playing against T72 in Gunner HEAT PC...
First hit probability over long ranges has been more important than armor or penetration power for NATO ever since the L7 cannon became a thing and HEATFS made armor irrelevant. Thats why at some point there were tanks with minimal armor and great electro-optical systems. Like OF-40 Leopard 1 AMX-30. Of course introduction of NERA/ERA made HEAT-FS a lot less relevant. But at the time of M60 was made battlefield had no composite equipped machines. It was a tank with an outdated design wave in mind. No one could have seen fin stabilization of HEAT being so dominant and revolutionary at the time. Which frankly was made by Americans.
M60 when it was first made was a tank like T-55. But with further improvements like AOS and TTS and even SLEP variants it became more modernized and a tank like Leopard A1A1. Capable at long ranges with great accuracy and ballistic properties. An M60A3 TTS would see and hit a T-64 at 2-3 kilometers way more often than reverse.
M60A2 Starship vs T64
The upper plate of a M60A1 is 110mm, not 93mm
That's m60A2 m60A1 has 93mm.
@@Slavkovic_PredragThe M60 was the one with 93mm
@@calenyaslowitz4503 You are right. I will correct the title.
You are right, though the sabot would still go through it.
The ending seems a bit weird.
It hit edge that had fixed support. I should have made armor some 50mm longer.
why do people always assume that 3bm9 was the main round for T-64s and at-72s?
War thunder
It was when it first came out. Heat was also used alot but apfsds was prefered since fcs didnt need to be good for accuracy.
Where do you find that 3d graphic or the round and are there similar graphics for other rounds aswell?
I got 2d cross section picture online and made 3d model myself in fusion360.
@@Slavkovic_Predrag very nice work!!
@@dudebroo3050 Thank you.
@@larrythorn4715 cutaways like that aren't the best for making a 3d model. Best ones are actually are cross 2d section cut exactly in half like this one : www.google.com/search?q=3bm9+cross+section&client=ms-android-xiaomi-rvo3&tbm=isch&prmd=ivmn&sxsrf=ALiCzsbiyFgZDNGE1eo5lUafJpBzVfOAqg:1665786545076&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjawKm64uD6AhXklosKHfrPBkUQ_AUIFigB&biw=393&bih=745&dpr=2.75#imgrc=dS3ynO1axeGuCM
That 3d render of 3BM9 is from the Steel Beasts wiki. I know because I've ran across it during my own research before.
Edit: oh, lol someone else already pointed that out, sorry.
Glorious! I was sure that a penetrator made of steel will not make it through at that angle, but it did👍
Armor: 93mm at 65°, eff armor: ~220mm. Penetration of projectile: 245mm, penetration possible. It's obviously a simplification, but it works most of the time
Oh and btw, 220mm = 93mm/cos(65°)
wow, I didn't expect this outcome
But
No sane gunner, if possible, would shoot at the m60's upper plate
LOL, real gunners put the tank in a targeting computer, automatic lead and the fire control system do the aiming, lead and elevation adjustments, the gunner just pulls the bang switch. There isnt this "imma aim for the left drive sprocket", like WoT and WT.....lol. The ballistics of the shell and physics take over from there. Where the gunner hits is barely up to the gunner.
@@CMDRFandragon you're gunner?
@@bigbadaboooom No, its just how modern FCS work on tanks. Its not manual like games. The gunner isnt sitting in there like a WW2 tank trying to get the gun on target...its pretty much electronic. Maybe the Coax is manual, or if your using a HE shell, even then......the Fire Control system of the tank does the math for ya.
@@CMDRFandragon and you think that the gunner cannot make adjustments to the FCS if he needs it?
@@bigbadaboooom Dunno why he would lol. Its not like the tank is a dot on the horizon or anything. Real gunnery is nothing like these games, where we are aiming for drive wheels and hatches from 100m away lol. Real life, its load gun, aim, fire. FIrst hit likely wins. No one has time to sit there dicking around with a precise aim point for 20 seconds. THen how would the gunner know his change is actually correct? ID venture to say, no....the gunner is not going to countermand the FCS........
[1970’s NATO base in West Germany]
“Been hearing RUMOURS a’ spreadin’ that the Ruskie shells can go through our Pattons. Happy to present to ye’ folks this simulation our technical team created to quell yer’ fears.”
Angled armor did nothing
Big advantage with APFSDS. Extreme normalisation. I’ve seen pictures of plates at >>70 degrees getting pierced by darts like that
no chance for yankee tank
Tiger 2 vs t 55.
Jako dobro, samo nastavite...
Hvala.
Os tanques perderam. Não importa mais o tipo de carro de combate. As novas armas anti tanque derrubam qualquer um deles. Um soldado com um lançador nas costas ou um jeep armado com um lançador múltiplo dão conta do recado.
No tank has ever been completely immune, tanks are are meant to be used thoughtfully, otherwise they're always lost in great numbers
@@Pao234_ Yes, you're right. The last conflicts showed this well.
One thing I’m getting from all of these simulation channels is that MBT armour is actually a gimmick and waste of time against modern projectiles. I know appliqué armour and ERA panels can be added to tanks but it just seems that the armour is useless in a raw tank on tank combat situation.
It's a guarantee penetration with first shot whenever the shots are coming from the side. A frontal hit is 50/50 survivable so whoever shot first almost has a guaranteed chance to defeat the target with the second. That's why if a tank on tank battle is expected, tanks always carry a APFDS round in the chamber, it's better to shoot infantry with the dart than having a HE round in the chamber when meeting another tank and miss the opportunity to land the first shot.
Nowadays first hit probability is far more important than penetration or armor. Has been so since the leopard 1s coming out.
It's not exactly that bad but tbf most cold war era armor schemes usually didn't last >5yrs before sth could pen them
I mean this is just a slab of RHA with no composite and no ERA
It’s not really a gimmick when you consider all the hazards tanks face. From small arms, attack aircraft, ied ect.. maybe not so useful against Apfsds, depends.
M60 was a world class turd, we learned nothing from WW2. We didn't have a decent tank until the Abrams, and even then it took time to make it tough enough.
Over time I have gotten the impression US tank design was chronically somewhat arrogant, or poorly thought-out. A lot of effort spent chasing diminishing returns while largely ignoring the iron triangle and logistics aspects. I very much perceive the M1 (though even that also suffered from the trend in some ways) as an internal institutional lash-out at this continuous stream of mediocrity and constant surprise at the enemy's achievements. Though the penetrators did somewhat keep up so that was alright I guess.
Russia used slug penetrators not monolithic.