Talk:Patton tank

This article was nominated for deletion on 6 December 2010. The result of the discussion was keep, convert to disambiguation page.

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States / Cold War Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

United States: Military history Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force.

Comments

Corrected the M60A1/A3 entry to show that USMC M60A1 Rise Passive was fitted with ERA. Marines never had the M60A3 prior to transitioning to M1A1 Abrams. Semper Fi. USMC1802 Thanks,that was my mistakeSafn1949 02:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC) anyone up to adding the M46 Patton Tank?[reply]

Do we want a list of all the variants? Seems over-detailed; an encylopedia should only hit the high points. Lefty 15:11, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

Yes. This isn't an abridged encyclopedia. In fact, I think each variant should have its own article and illustrations. Rklawton 03:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but it looks like time to remove some of that to a separate article, the way "M4 Sherman" and "T-34" have done. —Michael Z. 2006-01-25 06:00 Z

For reference, I trained on an M60A1 RISE and crewed on an M60A3 TTS. The M60A3 TTS could out-shoot (though not out-drive) the original M1 Abrams. The M1A1 fixed that problem - the problem being that M1's were equipped with the inferior TIS site. The TTS site was so good at day/night fighting that gunners prefered it over optical sites even during optimal daylight conditions. Rklawton 03:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean IPM1. Thats the Improved Production model.

HOOAH! Here you there, my father perfer the TTS sights over the GEN 1 TIS on the M1's. But I'd also like to point out the M60 never saw service in Vietnam, only the M47 and M48. The M287 CEV was the only variant of the M60 to see service there, and the M60 started service in Desert Shield then later in Storm.

I don't know if that statement is true. The Marines used the M47 and M48 in Vietnam because they didn't receive the M60A1 until 1973. The Army began use of the M60 as early as 1963. I find it hard to believe in 20 years of following war they wouldn't use it. I do know for a fact that the M60 was used in combat before Desert Storm. In fact it saw several battles in use with the IDF. Johnboy 09:46, 15 July 2006

EXCUSE ME GENTLEMEN, SLIGHT CORRECTION HERE: THE M-47 PATTON NEVER SAW COMBAT WITH US FORCES. YOUR FATHER MEANT THE M-41 WALKER BULLDOG LIGHT TANK WHICH WAS USED BY THE ARVN (SOUTH VIET ARMY) AND WAS ALSO USED IN THE MOVIE "FULL METAL JACKET." ARMY & MARINES USED THE M-48. 03/07

Yes,the M60A1 saw a lot of action during the Yom Kippur war,Nixon airlifted many M60A1's to Israel to replace battle losses. Safn1949 02:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is true: the few M60s were at time reserved for the European theatre.--MWAK 11:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

M-60 in Bosnia

Bosnia also use M-60.

So does Brazil, Spain, Gatamala, and a number of other countries. _____________________________________

There was some vandalism going on. Restored the missing text which was replaced with blablabla!

Patton I, II and III

Should we have all the Patton series tanks in a single article? I do not believe that we should as they are all very unique and do not have many common features between them. In fact, they are so different the only thing they all three have in common is a name. They all have such a distinguished fighting history that continues to this day (although not with US forces anymore), they should be allowed their own article. wikipedia has enough room for that.

Though hardly a typical splitter, I fully agree, especially as the M46 was merely a rebuilt M26. --MWAK 11:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

M48 vs T-55

Why did the M48 tank have a smaller gun calibre than say...the older T-55 (90mm vs 100mm) AND lighter armour (180mm vs 200mm) if it was from a later era and should be more advanced? Also, which tank would win in a one on one encounter?chubbychicken 09:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Leopard 1 and the AMX-30,which were both made after the T-55,had armour that was inferior to the T-55,which could be a bad idea.

I would say the T-55 would beat the M-48 if it was manned by a well trained crew,the T-55 also has heavier armour,it has a larger gun, and it has a lower profile. Dudtz 10/3/06 7:34 PM EST

DUdtz do not pretend to be knowledgble about tanks - your lack of tank knowledge is demonstrated on the abrams tank talk page, while you claimed that a SHERMAN tank could destroy an abrams in a one on one fight!!!Mdk0642 02:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC) The statement that the M-60 outperformed various other tanks has to be sourced or removed, as it stands it just makes it all sound very POV[reply]

Well yeah,if the Sherman got a rear hull,rear turret,top hull,bottom hull shot.--Dudtz 22:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patton

as I know, that the M 46 was only an improved M 26 (Pershing) so that the Name Patton for this vehicle ain't correct?

--Reforger 21:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The M46 and M60 never were named Patton. This name was reserved for the M47 (Patton I) and M48 Patton II) only! --Sardines en huile (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The M46 was named Patton on 30 July 1948 (Ref: Hunnicutt, p. 14, "Patton, A History of the American Main Battle Tank" (1984) Presidio Press ISBN 978-089141-230-4.
Correct, the M60 was never named Patton (Ref: Hunnicutt, p. 408, "Patton, A History of the American Main Battle Tank" (1984) Presidio Press ISBN 978-089141-230-4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.107.96.58 (talk) 17:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retain this summary article

Hi. The content here was recently deleted to convert this to a disambiguation page.

I reverted, because this is a decent summary article, covering a big topic. It is useful for readers who don't need to read a half-dozen detailed articles to get this information. And although much of the information is repeated and expanded elsewher, this is the only place with an overview explaining the relationship of all the specific subjects. We need more of these to cover important tank series. See Wikipedia:Summary style. —Michael Z. 2009-02-17 20:15 z

ok sure.--Patton^t/c 22:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

M60 Combat Tank, Full Tracked, U.S. Army

Per the US Army "dash 10" manual (the operator's manual), the M60 Combat Tank, also known as our nations first MBT (Main Battle Tank) in 1960, is NOT a Patton tank. If the US Army says it's not a Patton; why are civilians calling it one? On behalf of this countries veterans and present armor crewmen, if would be a professional courtesy if Wikipedia corrected the title of their feature article about the "M60" tank, to read either M60 Combat Tank or M60 Main Battle Tank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.60.156.2 (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]