1972. M60A1 vs Leopard 1A2.

[davebender]

Split off from best Cold War tank discussion.

Leopard AS1 Main Battle Tank Part One by Paul D. Handel
Historically Australia chose Leopard I over M-60 tank. Did they make the right choice? Which of these two tanks would you prefer to ride into combat during mid 1970s?

 

[Glider]

I think the Australian Army chose well. The M60 was the end of the development cycle starting with the 90mm M48 and the Leopard had far more developmental potential.

The M60 has never been described as a great tank, a good reliable tank certainly but not a great tank. The main advantage of the M60 was that it was cheap

 

[syscom3]

.... a good reliable tank certainly but not a great tank. The main advantage of the M60 was that it was cheap

Sounds like two great attributes to have. Inexpensive and reliable. Add in a good fire control system and a quality main gun (which it had) and you have a great tank.

 

[Glider]

true but you have a slow big tank with an average gun that cannot be developed

 

[parsifal]

The Australian Army Leopards were not 1A2 series. They were special variants with improved fire control and gun stabilzation to assist with Fire on the Move. They were acquired 1976-84, and as i recall, in 1982 there was an upgrade program, replacing the old ranging gun system with a fully integrated laser targetting system. They acquired a good reputation for first hit "kills" (simulated in training only....they were never used in anger). But Australian Leopards were flawed, in that they never had spaced armour, so were vulnerable. Later marks of the Bundeswehr from 1A4 onward had this feature.

Our experience in excercise with the US M-60 was that it was easier to spot. We did not think the m-60 was as accurate as the Australian Army Leopards, but that may well just be nationalistic jingoism. US M-60s had their levels of protection improvedf, principally by adding ceramic reactive armour tiles to their tanks for protection. we never received that as an upgrade to our tanks, though it was talked about.

Our tanks were never deplyed to iraq in 1991, because of that vulnerability, and because of logistic concerns. Getting adequate spares from the Germans was always problematic....they were just too slow to react to requests for spares....a case of poor after sales service. I think in the end, the leopard was a good tank, but from an operational usage perpsective we probably should have gone down the pathway of M-60. In the 2000's when looking at a replacement for the Leopard I, we did look briefly at the Leopard II but from the POV of procing, compatibility and mobility, it just wasnt in the race. We replaced the Leopards with a lesser number of refurbished and upgraded. Our new abrams have reactive armour, an improved sensor package and ranging system. The army is repportedly very happy with the new Abrams tanks that it has received.

 

[tomo pauk]

A nitpick:

US M-60s had their levels of protection improvedf, principally by adding ceramic reactive armour tiles to their tanks

Reactive armor on US tanks?

 

[Matt308]

Never seen a USMC M-60 tiled up? Looks rather after-market actually compared to the clean lines of the original. Kinda like the Panzer IV with skirt armor.

 

[tomo pauk]

I stand corrected

 

[Night Fighter Nut]

I worked with the M60 A1 A3 when I was in the Army. Very high profile, especially with the tank commander's coupula. The A2s were short lived as they had a shorter barreled gun... no pun intended. The M60 A3 were nice to work with but still had that high profile. The reactive armor was added after we saw many of the Russian tanks adding it.

 

[parsifal]

Honestly, I dont think there is much difference in the capability of either type. They are a bit dated now, but I think if money had been spent to upgrade them, they would be adequate (if not outstanding) even today.