A former M60A1 tanker has kindly accepted an interview for the blog. S. served in the 5th Infantry Division in one of the last units to use the M60A1.
1) Hello S., many thanks for accepting an interview with alejandro-8.blogspot.com. Could you provide an introduction to your service in the US Army?
I was trained on the M60A3 (TTS), but commanded an M60A1 tank platoon in the 5th Infantry Division at Ft. Polk, LA from 1985-1987. After that I did staff work at Battalion HQ from 1987-1988 after which I went back to civilian life.
2) You served in a M60 Patton. What was your impression of the vehicle, and the strong/weak points?
The M60 was a good solid tank in it's day. It had a high profile which was a tactical disadvantage, but my biggest problem was maintenance issues and trying to keep 4 tanks running. This was due largely to the age of the vehicles. Mine was the last M60A1 unit in the US Army and we were anxiously waiting to be equipped with the M1s while trying to keep the M60s up and running. The M60 was extremely easy to drive and the turret controls and gunsights were also excellent. My biggest complaint was the commander's cupola with the M-85 Machine gun. The machine gun was subject to frequent jams and was hard to clear due to the confines of the cupola. It was also VERY difficult to aim accurately. It's easy to see why the US Army chose to abandon the commander's cupola design feature on the M1 models.
3) You went from a M60A3 (TTS) with thermal sight to a M60A1 with IR sight. How did they compare?
The M60A1 and M60A3 were identical except laser rangefinder and the thermal sights on the A3. The thermal sights were a big help at night or in bad weather, especially fog, but I found the M17A1 coincidental rangefinder to be as fast and accurate as the laser rangefinder to a trained commander. In addition in bad weather, such as rain or fog, as long as you could see the target, the coincidental range finder was less subject to weather based errors, as the mark 1 human eyeball could adjust for weather effects that might "fool" the laser.
4) What was the weather condition that affected the thermal sight the most?
The thermal sights did remarkably well and were a BIG help in bad weather. The only weather related issues on the A3 was the laser range finder that could get fooled, especially by reflecting off raindrops. But the problem was really very minor overall.
5) Other M60A1 veterans stated that for night fighting they preferred flares over the IR projector. What is your opinion?
This is 100% true. We were training to fight a near-peer adversary (Warsaw Pact), so the use of the IR searchlight was considered practically suicidal because IR sights were ubiquitous technology by that time. Illuminating a target with an IR searchlight would have had the effect of giving away the illuminating tanks position almost as much as using a white light searchlight, without having the "dazzle" effect of blinding your target. So star shells were much more practical. For that reason, few of our battalion's IR searchlights even worked while I was in the unit and there was not much effort do get them into working condition. As a side note, I have one of the few working searchlights and occasionally used it in the white light mode to dazzle "opfor" opponents as a gag when they would send their scouts to harass us at night. Of course I would just "flash" them with the searchlight as extended shining it could potentially damage their eyesight due to the intensity of the light.
6) When training, at was the typical distance to the target and speed of the tank when you fired? And the longest distance at which you ever fired?
In training, it depended on the type of training and which post I was at. I was based at Fort Polk, Louisiana so, aside from the gunnery ranges, the terrain was heavily wooded with scattered swamps. As a result force on force exercises, using the MILES system took place at VERY close ranges, often less than 100 meters. In such conditions I really appreciated the M60s quick turret traverse. You could sling the turret around almost as fast as turning your head to look at a target. It also brought to mind the vulnerability of tanks to infantry with short range hand held AT weapons. In live fire gunnery exercises we usually trained to engage targets from 800 - 2000 meters. When we deployed to the NTC (National Training Center) at Ft. Irwin California it was very different. There it was dessert terrain and engagement ranges could be out to about 2400+ meters with very good chances to hit. Interestingly though, even in the dessert, taking advantage of wadis and folds in the terrain, it was also often possible to end up in short range engagements.
7) In terms of maintenance, was there any component or system that was more delicate? Were there any issues with the supply chain?
The components of a tank had to be very robust. The most delicate piece of my equipment actually tended to be my radios, which frequently malfunctioned. Parts for the tank had to be ordered through an elaborate ordering system that I never really got used to, but spare parts did not seem hard to get. The only exceptions might be parts for the searchlight, as I already discussed and the dozer blade which was on each of the company XO's tanks, but none of which ever worked.
8) What was the typical ammunition configuration load (% APDS/HESH/Smoke)? Did you have specific rounds for certain targets (APFSDS for T-64/72/80)?
As far as ammo load, I was never deployed for combat, so any rounds we had were training rounds and only enough to complete the exercises needed the gunnery tables. Ammo of course costs money, so we never had to decide how many of which type. As far as training, we were given HEAT, APDS, and WP(smoke) rounds. Which type to use against which target was the individual tank commander's prerogative as the situation dictated. We were trained that generally enemy tanks got sabot and APCs HEAT, but the ballistics/penetration game was always an issue. The sabot round was more accurate at long range, but lost penetration the farther out you got, while HEAT had the same penetration effects regardless of range. In addition, we trained to shoot APCS with the 50 cal at short ranges.
9) What was the maximum rate of fire you achieved? How did it change as you went through the different bins?
The maximum ROF was something we never really tried to achieve, so IDK what it would have been. We never put more than 2 or 3 rounds on a target, but a good loader could probably reload in a few seconds if he was ready with the second round while the first one went downrange. The order of reload was normally the ones on the turret floor first, then the ones from the bustle rack. Finally the ones along the driver in the hull could be brought out when you ran out. The only time that happened was in live fire exercises at the NTS. There I learned how difficult it would be to reload from the hull during combat, because the turret had to be rotated to the side and the gun elevated so that the loader could get the ones out of the hull. Not very practical in combat. The only other issue with all this was the loader's pre-planning. Like I said, the turret floor rounds would be used first, but if the loader had gone through all the HEAT rounds and wanted another one, he would go to the bustle rack rounds, even if there was still Sabot on the floor. The exception would probably been the rounds in the hull as it would be more practical to use whatever was in the hull, even if it was the wrong type of ammo, instead of going through the drill to go after the hull rounds.
10) What was the maximum distance you covered in a day during deployments or exercises? Was the mobility suitable? Did the tank cope well or needed extra maintenance?
I don't know how far we rolled in a night march. IT seemed like forever, but was probably only about 40 miles (60km). Maintenance was always an issue and breakdowns were very common. Most of these were suspension, rather than power train issues. Once the tank got rolling on the road, the diesel engines and transmissions bore the march very well, but the most common problems was overheating hubs due to insufficient lubricant or track problems due to worn parts of the track. Once you got off road into the much, the engines and transmissions would feel the strain and and malfunctions from over stressing them would become more common - especially over time.
11) The M60 is one of the largest (and most comfortable) tanks. Do you think it was worth it (it was also a larger target)?
The M60 was nice and roomy. Of course if it had been loaded with the full 63 rounds it would have been less so, but the driver's position was particularly large and comfortable. In combat the effort is made to keep yourself hull down, so that might reduce the high profile issues. IDK because no one ever shot at me. The Israelis used it with success in 1973 and I never read anything negative about the high profile, but of course history is written by survivors, so the guy who got picked off for being to tall a target might have a different opinion. ;-)
12) The M19 commander cupola is one element which has not proved popular, and some operators removed it. What do you think?
The cupola was worthless. Good riddance on the new tanks.
13) Did you practice NBC scenarios? What was the procedure? How did it affect the crew performance?
The NBC training was very common. We hated it, but got used to it.In total, It didn't really effect us much inside the tank. It was good to be a tanker rather than the poor bloody infantry because we had a gas particulator system that could be hooked into our gas masks, or even run into your clothing to provide do-it-yourself air-conditioning in the hot weather of Louisiana or the California dessert. We trained mostly in MOPP-1 or MOPP-4, if I remember correctly (it's been decades). MOPP 4 was fully masked with gloves and those annoying little booties and, of course, chemical protection suits. MOPP-1 was wearing chemical protection suits, but not wearing the masks (on the face) we always had the masks hanging in a satchel around our shoulders, 24/7.
14) During the Cold War the US Army would organise REFORGER exercises to deploy troops in Europe. Did you participate in one? How was your experience?
I never got to deploy to Germany. I spent years studying German in school, but have never been there to this day. :'(
15) You served in an infantry division. What was the typical scenario in training (Infantry support, counter attack, armed reconnaissance)?
Although I was in what was technically an "infantry" division, it was a mech division and at that point in time the mech divisions were equipped almost the same as an armored division. I think the TO&E of a mech division had 5 infantry battalions and 4 tank battalions as opposed to an armored division having 4 infantry and 5 tank battalions, but the emphasis was ALWAYS combined arms down to the company level, which we called teams. At the battalion level they were called task forces and would be formed by cross attaching infantry companies into tank battalions and visa versa. Then the companies would exchange infantry and tank platoons in a similar manner to make either mech heavy or tank heavy organizations, either 2 tank and one infantry or 2 infantry and one tank. We worked closely with our "crunchies" as we called the infantry and usually we cross attached with the same formations and the same men and got to know each other well.
16) The Patton family has a reputation for being an ideal tank for a conscript Army, being sturdy and reliable. Would you agree? How long do you think it takes to train a crew?
I would generally agree that the M60 was easy to operate. Troops get trained at their AIT (advanced individual training), the next step after boot camp, so would come to the unit already trained. Then it was just a matter of getting them integrated into their team position on the tank and platoon. They would start out as loaders, then move up to driver, then gunners, then commanders. By the time they became tank commanders many were already E5s or E6-s and had been to NCO school and were ready to become platoon sergeants if the need arose.
17) Did you have the opportunity to train with other Armies? What were your impressions? Did you like/dislike any specific equipment?
I never got to train with other armies. At my armor officer school at Fort Knox, we did have students from Thailand and Morocco and got to know them. The Thai officers were very professional and businesslike. The Moroccans were very friendly and fun to play around with, but I'm not sue I would have wanted to followed them into battle. Having said that, I'm not going to pretend that the few officers I met there were representative of their nations officer corps as a whole.
18) What is your opinion of Russian and Soviet T-64/72/80 tanks?
I think the Soviet tanks were excellent. They had their strengths and weaknesses. I think we would have kicked their butts had we gone to battle with them, but that is likely youthful bravado. The main difference would have been our crew quality and training rather than technical differences. Your question regards the T64/T-73/T80s specifically. Those tanks were a step up from the M60 generation, which was really made to fight the T-55/T-62 generation. However, again, the M60s would have given a good account of itself and I would rather be in the tank with the better crew than the one with better tech specs.
19) By the 1980s Israel had used the M60 Patton in combat. Did you get any feedback on its performance or changes applied to variants?
My only input from the Israeli experience using the M60 was from reading Israeli accounts. Those were issues handled by people high up the chain of command than me, but we knew that the eventual adoption of Blazer reactive armor, (which we didn't have yet) had come out of the Israeli experience.
20) What is your opinion on the Israel upgrades (Magach - also sold to Turkey as M60T)?
Again, my knowledge of the Israeli modifications to the M-60 is no greater than anyone else who can read accounts. Removing the cupola was probably the best mod to any American tank, but the use of a ranging machine gun seemed redundant to to the very accurate coincidental range finders we had.
21) Newer models of tanks have incorporated turbines and automatic loaders. What is your opinion of them?
I have followed the auto loader debate after I left the service. Some of the newer ones seem to be very good. The early ones don't seem to have been worth it. It's just another thing to break down and maintain. the most important thing is that tanks require a LOT of maintenance and missing the fourth crewman on the tank would have been a HUGE loss. Not only for maintenance, but guard duty and special tasks that the 1st sergeant was constantly taking our people to run supplies and this that or the other duty. As to the gas turbine engine, I think it's a HUGE mistake. the gas turbine engine would be VERY useful if you challenged the enemy to race around the track at Talladega Motor Speedway. In reality, tanks never run around the battlefield at full speed. A tanks ability to get up and move from a parked position is much more important than top speed. In that regard, the gas turbine engine might be helpful, but I don't think it's worth it in the long run. The gas turbines use a LOT of fuel very quickly. This in turn creates a greater need for more logistical support from vulnerable fuel trucks. An M1 parked from lack of fuel is far less effective than an old M60 rolling along on its diesel engine. The higher heat signature of the gas turbine is offset by the plume of black exhaust smoke when you mash the accelerator - so that's basically a wash.
22) Is there an anecdote you would like to share before we finish the interview?
My most memorable anecdote has little to do with tanking and more to do with being young and stupid. I was at armor school for my 23d birthday. My friends took me out and we got totally drink at the officers club, or maybe it was some seedy bar off post. I don't remember. The next day we engaged ion tactical exercises while I had a horrible hang-over. I learned 2 things. 1) A tank is no where you want to be with a hangover. the tank rolls over the ground going up and down with the terrain while at the same time the turret goes around and around. 2) Do you know about the hard plastic shall velcroed to the top of the combat vehicle crewman's head gear to absorbe blows from hitting your head inside the vehicle? Well it also makes an ready use puke bucket to throw things outside the tank in case you're stupid enough to get in a tank with a hangover.
Other interviews:
I am always looking for more
veterans, active members or people related with the defence industry to
accept interviews. If you enjoyed reading the material and would be
happy to accept an anonimous interview you can get in contact with me.
My e-mail can be found in this link at the heading. Otherwise leave a
message in the comment sections.
- Interview with a former M60/Abrams tanker
- Interview with a former Olifant tanker
- Interview with a former Chieftain tanker
- Interview with a former M551 Sheridan driver
- Interview with a former Centurion tank driver in the Army of Sweden
- Interview with a former Centurion tanker in the Army of Denmark
- Interview with a USAF pilot who flew the F-106 Delta Dart
- Interview with an US Army M48A5/M60A1 veteran tanker
- Interview with a former British artilleryman and veteran of the Gulf War
- Former M60 tanker in the Army of Austria
- Former Chieftain crew member
- Former Chieftain gunner
- AMX30 commander of the Army of France
- NCO of the Army of Serbia
- Former crew member of Challenger 2
- Former Leclerc commander
- T-72 driver in Czech Army
- US Army M60 tank crewmman
- Interview with D., former US Army tanker with experience in the M60 and M1 Abrams
- Interview with Stefan Kotsch, former NVA/Bundeswehr tanker
- Interview with former Marine and writer Kenneth Estes
