Interview with a former M60 tanker

A former M60A3 tanker kindly accepted an interview for the blog. I. served in the US Army in the final stage of the Cold War, and later on in the different conflicts that followed. I would like to use this opportunity to thank him for his time.

1) Hello I., many thanks for accepting an interview with alejandro-8.blogspot.com. Could you provide an introduction to your service in the US Army?

I entered the US Army in 1983 under the Officer Candidate Program. I went through basic enlisted combat training and then went to FT Benning Officer Candidate School where I was trained in Officer Basic and Infantry Leadership skills. After Completing I was selected for the US Cavalry Officers Basic Course starting in August 1984,

Being trained in the transitional period of our Armor/Cavalry branch where we had new systems coming into service and older systems in service depending on location assigned. I was trained on system and command and control of M113s, FISTVs, Bradly Fighting Vehicle/Cavalry Version.  Also familiarized with the M60A1, Sheridan, M1 and M60A3 (more extensively as it was the most numeric vehicle in service)and related service and support vehicles and capabilities. I was assigned to West Germany in February 1985 . I attended the Infantry Mortar Leaders course as well.

In total I served 28 years in US Army as an Armor /Cavalry officer. Served in West Germany, then Germany (After Unification), Southwest Asia (Multiple Tours and Years). Former Yugoslavia with a light Cavalry Reconnaissance element and another four combat tours in Iraq. Also commanded Joint Units and worked with NATO command and Multinational forces regarding doctrine and combat operations. 

In between assignments I attended additional courses Armor Officers Advanced Course, Combined Arms Services Staff School, Command and General Staff, Joint Forces Staff College. Naval Post Graduate School, Army War College. Royal Military Academy Senior Leaders Courses. Had a long and successful 28 year career retired as a senior field grade  Armor Officer , was further specialised in Joint, Multinational operations and strategic planning.

2) You served in a M60 Patton. What was your impression of the vehicle, and the strong/weak points?

I found the vehicle to be a dependable and easy to use. The M60A3 had an excellent Laser Range finder and thermal sights, and gun sights. The gun stabilisation system was also very good. While the M1 Abrams is often credited for being the first US tank in service with a digital ballistics computer, a laser rangefinder, a passive thermal imaging system, and the ability to fire on the move at high speeds with great accuracy, the M60A3 actually had all of these capabilities before the M1 even entered production

Although the recommended firing of a moving target on the move was discouraged in training, an experienced Gunner could engage, and we did hit targets. Weak points may be an experience of the Israelis that the cupola for TC was a liability for it high visibility, The TC were subject to decapitation(but most fought with hatches open) better to acquire and engage targets. They did not have the thermals or laser in the A1 version though. We were top priority Tier I and were afforded all the repair parts as needed. We were always fully combat loaded due to being deployed at any moment to the border area to defend against invasion.

The M85 was sighted by many as a problem weapon, but it was lighter and more compact than the M2 Browning. I discovered it was subject to jamming if over cleaned, compared to M2 an occasional cleaning and simply putting oil on the parts in use kept it firing and no jams. It also had a higher rate of fire than the Browning machinegun. While the M1 Abrams is often credited for being the first US tank in service with a digital ballistics computer, a laser rangefinder, a passive thermal imaging system, and the ability to fire on the move at high speeds with great accuracy, the M60A3 actually had all of these capabilities before the M1 even entered production

3) When training, what was the typical distance to the target and speed of the tank when you fired? And the longest distance at which you ever fired?

Speed between 12-15 miles on tank engagements. As I said earlier the tables was firing on the move at stopped targets,Tanks ,BMPs, Personnel ,even helicopters(these aviation elements only on simulator).  We did fire moving targets at a short halt, but we did fire moving targets on the move. Range was also always terrain dependent  but average between 1200-3000 meters with main gun.

4) How was the night firing conducted (flares/projector)? What was the maximum distance at which you could fire?  

With the added DU round that was put into service in our combat load in May of 1985, the range of the round and successful armor penetration was expanded significantly. But the terrain in our area of hills and valleys made the ranges more limited. Our main gun engagements on our  terrain averaged between 1200-2500 meters, even target hit at 3000 m and further out was greatly improved with the computer systems ,optics and ammunition and could easily been done. If used in a desert terrain it could exceed these ranges, but not the case for training in the area we were to defend.

5) Other M60 veterans stated that for night fighting they preferred flares over the IR projector. What is your opinion?

Not used or needed on the M60A3, even though we did training on occasion with artillery flares , they were unnecessary with the excellent thermal sights for acquiring and engaging targets. We were trained to operate and utilize the cover of darkness as an advantage for battle. The starlight scope was used by the driver, not IR ,and it was very good after you trained them to understand the dept /distance  in night driving with scope. 

6) In terms of maintenance, was there any component or system that was more delicate? Were there any issues with the supply chain?

The main component that failed was the heater! Not good in cold weather. I anticipated this need and trained my tank crews in the repair and provided replacement parts. We would collect scrapped heaters and repair as spares for quick substitution. A great trading tool for things you wanted from other tank units that did not have the extras and were literally in the cold in winter. The other parts were always sourced and provided as we were a ist Tier unit and always required to be ready to move into combat operation at a moment’s notice. As I sated before we were on the point of the spear in defending  West Germany and carried full combat loads 0f tank and machine gun munitions at all times ,except during target training, uncommon and not the case for all other units that would not have the ammunition in tanks until deployed to a war zone or imminent war.

7) What was the typical ammunition configuration load (% APDS/HESH/Smoke)? Did you have specific rounds for certain targets (APFSDS for T-64/72/80)?

Carried 63 rounds of ammunition with 26 stored in the forward part of the hull, to the left and right of the driver's position, 13 in the turret for ready use, 21 in the turret bustle and the remaining three under the gun. Even though we were familiarized with the older behive round, the composition was of Sabot about 60% and remainder Heat rounds. No smoke required as we had Smoke generators and were also equipped with grenade launchers on the hull.  With the DU round none of the tanks fielded by the Russians including the still to be fielded T80, could be easily penetrated and destroyed. The DU round paper specifications on range and penetration were always underestimated for the  public unclassified data on all USA and NATO papers. I have had many discussions with Russian trolls trying to argue that the 105 gun would not penetrate the Soviet tanks, yet we still use the system on lighter tank variants, i.e. the Stryker and Centauro. Where as the Russians ,even today ,exaggerate the combat and protection capabilities of their systems. Much has been tested in active combat and proven to fall short of their hype.

8) What was the maximum rate of fire you achieved? How did it change as you went through the different bins?

I do not recall the exact rate, I know that we were always trained to load and fire faster than any automatic loader on a Russian tank. I recall in the engagement tables for Platoon fires on Tank Table Twelve were trained in a full scale operation to engage a motorized tank/rifle regiment. We first engaged with artillery which I called in at long range, after that we fired about fifty percent of basic tank load (about 120 rounds)on range of tank and BMP targets in a few minutes,and quickly cross loaded ammunition in a short interval of minutes to equally distribute rounds. We then reengaged and destroyed most targets and then fire White phosphorus at on coming infantry from grenade launcchers and called in Attack helicopters as we displace. Of note my four tank Platoon won the TOP GUN Award  First  Armored Division in early 1986 after this engagement. The observers after reviewing all th tank units that were tested stated that we had fired upon and hit/destroyed more targets with our Platoon then the Berlin Tank Brigade! My soldiers were exceptionally trained, even though most were less experienced when assigned to me a year prior.

9) 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?

We covered routs of up to 10-12 hours per day. Average speed would be about 25 and up to 30 miles 48 Kilometers per hour. We conducted many long road marches across Autobahns and country roads as part of our training. This was done in all weather conditions and even included bridging exercises for tanks to drive over.

Our tanks were always well maintained in my unit and most of our Division as well,so in general did not encounter real maintenance issues in operations. The more common wear would be to the tank tracks and mainly the Rubber pads that would wear from driving and need replacement. In open terrain off road or in hills an occasional thrown track(many times the cause was poor driving or TC controlling driver). I had not had thrown tracks on my own tank ,because I learned from others in Armor school and in field what not to do!  In the rear , our  engine packs would be pulled/replaced when  they were getting close to end in life of engine. I can say our maintenance teams and M88s did a great  job in support to us in the field and at home.

10) The M60 is one of the largest (and most comfortable) tanks. Do you think it was worth it (it was also a larger target)?

It was an excellent defensive tank and was a bit larger and more comfortable inside. I feel even today the trained crews and this tank would have fared well against an attacking Soviet army and inflicted severe damage to the enemy. Even the newer variants offered in Isreal/Egypt and Jordan, it probably would with a well trained combined arms team fight well. (Of Course the M1 is still a super tank with its additional upgrades even on todays battlefield !)

11) The M19 commander cupola is one element which has not proved popular, and some operators removed it. What do you think?

As noted earlier, the Cupola was deleted by the Israeli’s after the number of decapitations of TC in combat. Two reasons, One it is higher up on hull and additionally the Israeli’s found that fighting unbuttoned allowed the TC to acquire and engage more targets than inside. Especially in the M60A1 Rise passive version which they used. With thermal sites and also the Starlight scope for the TC 50 calibre M85 version, you could with training successfully acquire and engage enemy targets.  It was an older design and still provided protection against small arms and artillery. With the change to an above mounted 50 calibre on the M1 variants the cupola , is no longer was considered need with the optics inside and also to give better protection to the TC in the hull. That the  cupola could be an easier target and can be hit by RPG or main gun round, in forested woods or darkness probably not as big a danger in our time and location .

12) Did you practice NBC scenarios? What was the procedure? How did it affect the crew performance?

We always practiced NBC training and also decontamination as part of all of our exercises. We conducted gunnery and operations with full NBC equipment and masks, and although less comfortable than without, we were able to do all tasks to standard. This was an anticipated and potential use by Soviet forces, especially after the Arab Israeli war  in  1973 when the captured newer  Russian armoured equipment was discovered to have NBC seals for the vehicle and crew protection.

13) 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?

We were always involved in REFORGER(Return of Forces to Germany). It was in February and allowed off road movement and large scale operations and exercises. We had one where the snow and ice was melting prematurely in 1986 and although we were not to go off road in many areas to avoid manuever damage, we were able to complete the exercise successfully. My own experience was pleasant, hard training but good results and spent time in the country and stops in towns, even for a quick run in a bakery or grocery store!

14) 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 believe the term conscript or draft army is irrelevant, especially in this later variants like the M60A3. I can state that they intelligence requirements for an armor crewmen is much higher than that for a infantry unit due to the technical level of the equipment. Since the principle positions that a new soldier learning tank systems is assigned first as loader,then driver, later if they remain in service tank gunner and after that Tank Commander. The last two position require a full comprehension and ability that is acquired by those who serve more than a year and a half. Since we in the USA ended the Draft in 1975.  All the servicemembers that qualify as tank crewmen were volunteers and had a higher level of technical skills . When the M60A3 all the crews would have been volunteers, and also compared to the rise passive systems the A3 simplified the acquisition and firing process for the gunner and TC. In foreign armies where the conscript is or was still used the need to understand the first two key functions in the tank are fairly easy to lean and a capable gunner and TC must be further trained.

15) Did you have the opportunity to train with other Armies? What were your impressions? Did you like/dislike any specific equipment?

I trained with NATO  ,allied and foreign forces. I enjoyed most experiences. In general the NATO equipment was on par or all were pretty good. I recall going into the LEO2 for gunnery and was envious of the newer tank than what we had then with a a 120mm smoothbore. But it passed quickly and then we were scheduled to transition to the M1A1 in Nov 1987. I like the British Challenger as well and the older LEO 2s. In the foreign armies like Egypt and Jordan, seeing the upgraded M60 tanks was like seeing an old friend. Some of our allies had Russian tanks or variants like the M84 tank. They looked ok but not impressive overall. I did conduct exercises with most of NATO allies and was always  great experience. A bit harder with some countries as we were able to identify weaknesses and try to explain them at times was a challenge to their cultural views or perceptions.

16) What is your opinion of Russian and Soviet T-64/72/80 tanks?

Aside from engaging and destroying them in later wars, I can say that they were unimpressive by technology and protection as well as crew comfort. Many later variants had upgraded Armor and optics packages but no better results on the battlefield. Some were even improvements to the Russian Versions like the later model M84s. We as the western opponents were initially in awe of the low profile tanks and carriers, but after the first captured ones were provided from Israel to facing them on the battlefield, they proved to be easy targets. We also face them in opposing forces exercises using captured equipment with John Deere diesel engines as replacements for training.

Their only advantage in the Warsaw Pct alliance was a large number of tanks. We as TCs and leaders trained all of crews to engage and destroy up to ten tanks at a time! T80 and 90 contrary to Russian trolls arguments are far more inferior to more modern NATO tanks and easily destroyed. The myth that the Russian units(which are first line active army units) are not the best or trained elements is a fallacy as well as their ability to operate as a combined arms team. So the claim that a Iraqi tank crew would not fight like a Russian Tank crew has proven wrong. I do believe that  even with our M60A3s we would have done significant damage to the invaders as we knew every inch of the battle area we defended and had preplanned artillery, air and defensive positions . My soldiers were prepared to fight to the last tank and death to hold ,slow  and destroy the enemy advance and allow reinforcements to arrive in Europe.

17) By the 1980s Israel had used the M60 Patton in combat. Did you get any feedback on its performance or changes applied to variants?

Yes we were provided and shared all the results of combat and intelligence  on vehicles and performance. In reality the US equipment used by Isreal provided critical results on the performance of equipment in battle. The elimination of the cupola on newer tanks can be seen as a direct influence of the Israel battle experience.  With the addition of thermal sights laser range finder and a morse sophisticated computer fire control made the tanks a faster and more accurate weapons system from acquiring to destroying targets even in large numbers versus your forces.  

18) What is your opinion on the Israel upgrades (Magach - also sold to Turkey as M60T)?

I can not say much as the upgrade packages vary and some later variants even now have some good upgrades regarding gun and firing systems. I recall in 1987 there was a model with reactive armor for the Berlin brigade(No use giving them the newer tank) as they were encircled and would not last long if a Soviet attack had occurred. I can only say that I would probably prefer those variant  tanks if I had to choose versus to the T72  upgrades or even the T80( if an M1 version was not an option). I would believe they are going to work correctly and better than the opposing systems . As in all things a trained crew and effective combined arms tactical employment is central to success.

19) Is there an anecdote you would like to share before we finish the interview?

As we discuss older tank systems we all must realize that some were very good for the time frame and some not, but if you are facing any tank you must be prepared to deal with them.

I recall in the first days after the signing of the Dayton peace accords for the former Yugoslavia war, I and my team were one of the first elements deployed as a light cavalry element with armored HMMUVs mounted with a large MG and also with a dragon AT missile in each vehicle. In our entry in early days we encountered every kind of armored vehicle from tanks of modern manufacture to older US and soviet tanks  from WW2 being used in the recent combat. In the first days my units HUMMVS were assigned to escort supplies and equipment on trucks to build base camps throughout in Bosnia /Herzegovina . We had cleared the combatants and disarmed them in the Pasovina Corridor area or so we thought. When we came down a curve as I and my vehicles were leading a large convoy of trucks we observed two T34s pull out of what we believed was a cleared area. These were Serb tanks from the militia and had two nervous TC on top looking at us.  My driver said sir pull out the camera and take a picture, I said no we will have our Anti-Tank system ready to engage! I also called in Cobra Attack helicopters that were also quickly dispatched. Lesson learned even an old tank can do damage if they choose to a lighter armored type vehicle especially with the element of surprise.  You must always have the best intelligence on the area you are operating in ,from ground and air assets.

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 Pakistani Army Type-59 tanker
- Interview with a former Leopard 1 tank commander in the Army of Canada
- Interview with a former Merkava tanker
- Interview with a former M60A1 tanker
- 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