![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
| |||||||
| Forums | Register | Groups | Awards | Arcade | Pets | T-Bucks / T-Store | Invite Your Friends | Blogs | Mark Forums Read |
| Army For any current or former soldiers of any Armed Forces. |
Army | |||||||||
|
|
|
|
| |||||
![]() |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools |
| | #3 (permalink) |
| Pending User ![]() | I liked the M-60A1, it was a good tank, dependable. Accurate out to 2500m. The T-72 is comparable, about the same range (2000m), but the biggest differeance is the crew. t-72 has 3 (auto loader) where the M-60 has a crew of 4. Human loaders can load a round in @ 3 seconds, where an autoloader is considerably slower. The cannon on the M-60 is a 105mm as compared to a 125mm on the T-72, but I think the 105mm is more accurate. I think the M-60 is a better tank, but I also believe they are very comparable. |
| | |
| | #4 (permalink) |
![]() | There are M60's and M60's. The last M60, M60A3 RISE TTS, had a laser rangefinder and thermal night sights, immense capability improvements over predecessors. There are T72's and T72's as well - the export version was referred to by the Russians as the "Monkey" version. But I don't think the T72's ever prevailed in the limited number of times they engaged each other. Garryowen |
| | |
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| |
Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Attention on Deck Water study Camp Lejuene | cato2 | Marine Corps | 2 | 07-10-2005 11:06 |
| Chart deck is too big | Tony Bender | Microsoft Applications | 1 | 06-16-2004 04:59 |
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |