M60 Phoenix Main Battle Tank

[BLACKEAGLE]

@Desert Fox

With all due respect,

Any debate with you is sterile, your last posts are filled with lies about me, I didn't say Western tanks are impenetrable and didn't say Eastern tanks have no crew protection. It's not my problem that you have comprehension problems. All I was doing here is clarifying what I had already said to you as well as putting words in my mouth over and over again, so it seems that we won't move on with this discussion. So let's leave it here.

 

[Armstrong]

@Desert Fox

With all due respect,

Any debate with you is sterile, your last posts are filled with lies about me, I didn't say Western tanks are impenetrable and didn't say Eastern tanks have no crew protection. It's not my problem that you have comprehension problems. All I was doing here is clarifying what I had already said to you as well as putting words in my mouth over and over again, so it seems that we won't move on with this discussion. So let's leave it here.

I have massive comprehension problems too because I don't know what you were on about either ! Perhaps you can post a comparison of the two philosophies !

P.S If I didn't know why you're this grumpy and I sympathize with you...you'd find another in no time, I'd take grave exception to your tone young man !

 

[BLACKEAGLE]

I have massive comprehension problems too because I don't know what you were on about either ! Perhaps you can post a comparison of the two philosophies !

P.S If I didn't know why you're this grumpy and I sympathize with you...you'd find another in no time, I'd take grave exception to your tone young man !

I usually get angry with people who put words in my mouth and repeat things I have already talked about again and again, not because they don't understand but simply their ego won't let them to. I prefer to avoid such people. Again, I am not an expert or sth, but I haven't got the counter argument I was looking for. In Arab forums it's a different issue, you would find members who actually design tanks from scratch, you would find others who debate about very sophisticated and little details of fighters radars in such a professional way, the things I haven't yet found here. We (fans) didn't dare to humiliate ourselves in joining such debates, we used to set back and enjoy reading them.

 

[Armstrong]

I usually get angry with people who put words in my mouth and repeat things I have already talked about again and again, not because they don't understand but simply their ego won't let them to. I prefer to avoid such people. Again, I am not an expert or sth, but I haven't got the counter argument I was looking for. In Arab forums it's a different issue, you would find members who actually design tanks from scratch, you would find others who debate about very sophisticated and little details of fighters radars in such a professional way, the things I haven't yet found here. We (fans) didn't dare to humiliate ourselves in joining such debates, we used to set back and enjoy reading them.

Hmmmn...show off !

But dude, I really don't know how the Eastern Tank is inferior to its Western Counterpart ! I don't buy most of what you've said till now !

 

[BLACKEAGLE]

Hmmmn...show off !

But dude, I really don't know how the Eastern Tank is inferior to its Western Counterpart ! I don't buy most of what you've said till now !

I didn't show off, but I really didn't see professional debates here at all.
It needs time to organize my thoughts and for searching, I will get back later and explain in details why they are inferior.

 

[Desert Fox]

@Desert Fox

With all due respect,

Any debate with you is sterile, your last posts are filled with lies about me, I didn't say Western tanks are impenetrable and didn't say Eastern tanks have no crew protection. It's not my problem that you have comprehension problems. All I was doing here is clarifying what I had already said to you as well as putting words in my mouth over and over again, so it seems that we won't move on with this discussion. So let's leave it here.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You accusing me of having comprehension problems is like the pot calling the kettle black.

If i point out the self contradictions in your posts i'm afraid i will embarrass you of how bad your comprehension problems are.

I didn't say Western tanks are impenetrable and didn't say Eastern tanks have no crew protection.

That is exactly what you were implying by your posts if we were to take all of them into context; ie "Eastern Tanks get blown up by Machine guns, Western Tanks invincible". "Eastern Tanks= Iraqi GW1 and Soviet cold war era Tanks", "Western Tanks=super duper martian machines that don't get blown up in irregular warfare".

Because it hurts your ego to know that the countries from whom you buy your Tanks from, those same Tanks get blown up by 20-30 year old RPG's (you stated yourself) and home made IED's despite the overly hyped reputation of those Tanks. It's funny because you were rejoicing over the fact that Russian Tanks were taken out in the Chechen war by Guerilla forces, and when i posted images of American Abrams (equipped with the Chobham armor) all burnt to crust, engulfed in flames, you couldn't digest that fact.

Look at all of your replies to my posts, nothing but piles of assumptions, baseless rants, highly doubtful information, and most of all outdated knowledge. Your replies are laughable, you can't even bring back a better counter argument to my posts and instead try to bypass them. Learn a thing or two about Modern Eastern MBT's before going off about how inferior Eastern Tanks are to Western Tanks.

Come back and argue when you grow that grey matter necessary to debate, until then i won't even bother replying to your emotional rants. Adios.

 

[BLACKEAGLE]

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You accusing me of having comprehension problems is like the pot calling the kettle black.

If i point out the self contradictions in your posts i'm afraid i will embarrass you of how bad your comprehension problems are.



That is exactly what you were implying by your posts if we were to take all of them into context; ie "Eastern Tanks get blown up by Machine guns, Western Tanks invincible". "Eastern Tanks= Iraqi GW1 and Soviet cold war era Tanks", "Western Tanks=super duper martian machines that don't get blown up in irregular warfare".

Because it hurts your ego to know that the countries from whom you buy your Tanks from, those same Tanks get blown up by 20-30 year old RPG's (you stated yourself) and home made IED's despite the overly hyped reputation of those Tanks. It's funny because you were rejoicing over the fact that Russian Tanks were taken out in the Chechen war by Guerilla forces, and when i posted images of American Abrams (equipped with the Chobham armor) all burnt to crust, engulfed in flames, you couldn't digest that fact.

Look at all of your replies to my posts, nothing but piles of assumptions, baseless rants, highly doubtful information, and most of all outdated knowledge. Your replies are laughable, you can't even bring back a better counter argument to my posts and instead try to bypass them. Learn a thing or two about Modern Eastern MBT's before going off about how inferior Eastern Tanks are to Western Tanks.

Come back and argue when you grow that grey matter necessary to debate, until then i won't even bother replying to your emotional rants. Adios.

Putting words in my mouth and lying again, I said Chadian rebels used DSHK and RPG-7 (Check my post), I have never ever said Western tanks are invincible. Do you see now why I don't take you seriously?
Now, no need to waste more time with whom you think lack comprehension.I am not saying this arbitrarily, but rather I have had discussions with before and saw how coherent your logic was in many cases. I'm sorry my friend but I am not willing to have discussions for the sake of having them.

 

[BLACKEAGLE]

I have massive comprehension problems too because I don't know what you were on about either ! Perhaps you can post a comparison of the two philosophies !

P.S If I didn't know why you're this grumpy and I sympathize with you...you'd find another in no time, I'd take grave exception to your tone young man !

And you! Which word don't you understand!

Yes, it was. But when it's equipped with:

The Phoenix Project addresses both immediate and emerging operational threats to the M60 Main Battle Tank using a modular and flexible approach to improve shoot-on-the-move capabilities, as well as increased lethality, mobility, and survivability. These upgrades are achieved at low technical and operational risk and at low cost.

Pre-upgrade Status
Old fire control system (TTS), slow in engaging targets
105 mm Main gun
Unable to acquire and fire on targets while moving
Thermal sighting system is not stabilised.
Armour protection level is not suitable to the foreseeable threat
Engine Power and suspension system overdue for upgrade
Post Upgrade Status
Ability to acquire both moving and stationary targets
High rate of first round hit probability
Improved protection and survivability
Improved mobility and manoeuverability
Upgrade Specifications
Phoenix Shoot-On-the-Move Upgrade
True shoot-on-the-move capability, day/night target acquisition, and improved first round hit probability are achieved

with Raytheon's Integrated Fire Control System (IFCS) upgrade.

Phoenix Lethality Upgrade
Significant improvement in the firepower and lethality of the current M60 platform is achieved through the replacement

of the M60 105 mm rifled cannon with RUAG Land Systems L50 120 mm smooth-bore Compact Tank Gun (CTG).

Phoenix Mobility Upgrade
Improvements in M60 acceleration and cross-country capability are achieved with the mobility upgrade provided by

General Dynamics Land Systems.

Phoenix Survivability Upgrade
Survivability is improved through the addition of the armour protection scheme for both the M60's turret and the hull.

The protection scheme can be reconfigured to changing threat conditions.

Surveillance and fire control
Eye-safe laser rangefinder integrated into gunner's sight system:
One pulse / second rate

200 - 9,995 m range

One million shot life

Second generation night sight integrated into gunner's sight system:
Linear cooler

240X4 detectors

Two-axis, stabilised line of sight platform with a director system.

Gun elevation sensor:
With electrical resolver

Replaces mechanical ballistic drive

Dynamic Vehicle Cant Sensor
Modular Ribbonised Organised Integrated (ROI) wiring system
Digital ballistic computer system
Turret stabilisation system upgrade
MIL-STD 1,553 digital data bus
Laser Warning Device
Hemispherical Coverage down to -30°
Continuous Coverage from 500 -1,800 nm
Probability of detection:
95 % Single pulse;

99 % Multiple pulse threats.

Threat Coverage includes latest generation, beam rider and high energy dazzle lasers
Optical threat reloading and identification
Gun Parameters
Semi-automatic dropping wedge breech
Mean Recoil Travel: 440 mm
Maximum Recoil Travel: 450 mm
Mean Recoil Force: 290 kn
Maximum Recoil Force: 390 kN
Design Gas Pressure: 7,400 bar
Elevating mass: 3,780 kg
Recoiling mass: 1,860 kg
Rate of Fire 6 to 10 rounds per minute
Survivability
In Development: add-on armour protection pack, ammunition storage and containment system
Man-ready Ammunition Containment unit

20 rounds ready-rack storage

Electro-mechanical Gun/Turret drive unit (In development)
Digital motor drive unit

EM Traverse mechanism assembly

Fully developed turret control and stabilisation software

Mobility
Upgrade engine to 950 HP(General Dynamics Engine upgrade)
Upgrade transmission to CD 1,000
New air cleaner and air induction systems
Improved suspension system
New and improved final drives
High speed directed launcher (HSDL)
Number of tubes: 2 to 12
Coverage: hemisherical
Payload type: multi-spectral smoke optional hardxill

It was upgraded to meet "NATO standards", it has nothing to share with M-60 A3 but only the chassis. Let me ask you whether you would consider this upgraded M-60 a 2nd gen tank or not:

The same thing goes for M-60 Phoenix.

Type 59 is a first generation tank while M-60 is a second generation tank, you can't just compare between them, too many differences.

List of main battle tanks by generation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Actually, that pic was on Wikipedia page of this tank, look, it's not a matter of Iraqi T-72 performance in GW2, we (Fans of Russian tanks) used to have big arguments with a very respectable and knowledgeable tank specialist in Arab military forums, he proved that Eastern tanks have serious shortcomings in their designation, flaws in storage of fuel and ammunition, short life of their main guns (series of main guns came before 2A46M), weakness of armor protection, light weight, the advantages and disadvantages of the auto loading system, and superiority of of Western sight equipment. So, I believe Western tanks are superior.

From one of his topics:

As a result of the Russian Army's mauling at the hands ofthe Chechen rebels-particularly the disastrous assault on Grozny on 31 December 1994, the Kremlin made a shocking admission ofshortcomings at a televised scientific-technical conference at Kubinka on 20 February 1995.
Defense Minister Pavel Grachev admitted that unnecessary casualties were sustained due to the T-80Y's vulnerabilities: short range, flammable fuel and ammunition stowage, thin upper surface armor.

Bitten by their own RPGs, the Russians have developed a defensive countermeasure that solves some of the technological problems addressed at Kubinka.

The Arena Active Protection System, developed at the Kolomna-based Engineering Design Bureau, is designed to provide protection from antitank grenades and ATGMs, including those with top-attack £^ warheads.

Arena is foreseen as useful, both on battlefields where the latest generation of 3-8 km ATGMs
vj prevail and during peacekeeping operations and LICs, where the greatest threats are from light antitank weapons.

Arena includes three major subassemblies. Inside the turret, and taking up about 30m
3 , is the target detection and tracking equipment (computer, TC's control panel, command signals converter unit).

J— The radar itself is fitted to a 'Kladivo'-style folding radar mast, mounted on the centerline at the rear of ~^ the turret roof. The octagonal radar panel assembly is fairly large, approximately 1.5m
3 .

^^ Launchers, which the makers call 'silos,' are mounted around the turret, reminiscent ofthe BDD 'Horse *^ Shoe' armor. They provide a 110-degree arc of protection, centered on the gun tube (Russian reactive ** armor kits weigh the same as an active kit, but only cover a 35-40 degree arc). The system has 22 to 26 rounds, depending upon the type of tank, which are mounted so that they provide overlapping 'fields of fire.' Unlike reactive armor, an expended round will not leave a hole in the defensive curtain. 1- short range, 2- flammable fuel and 3- ammunition stowage, 4- thin upper surface armor. Bitten by their own RPGs The silos are armored against splinters and bullets to prevent accidental detonation ofthe rounds. The whole 27 V system weighs 1,000-1,100 kg and consumes 1 kW of power.


The description ofthe system in use sounds fairly simple. Prior to entering a hostile area, the TC turns the system on. Arena automatically tracks incoming rounds, ignoring incoming rounds until they're within 50m, then engaging anything approaching at speeds of 70-700 m/s. False targets, such as outgoing rounds, near misses, birds, small projectiles (like bullets or splinters) would be ignored.

When fired, the round detonates the warhead at a stand-off distance of a few meters, so that the
double-charge ATGM warheads designed to defeat reactive armor are rendered impotent. Time to detect and destroy a threat is .07 sec, with .2 to .4 sec for the system to reset. The danger zone for accompanying infantry is 20-3Om.

If necessary, the TC can manually override and fire the system. The number ofremaining rounds are
displayed on the TC's control panel. The rounds are rectangular and reloadable by the crew.

The Arena system, which can be fitted to new production tanks as well as existing ones scheduled for rebuilds, is expected to double the tanks' survivability during assaults and reduce losses from 1.5 to 1.7 Arena-fitted tanks are not supposed to create electromagnetic interference while working with other tanks. The manufacturers also claim that the system is extremely immune to ECM.
Support for the system has also been addressed by the manufacturer. Subsystems are modular and can be pulled for fast replacement. Test and control equipment is mounted on a cross-country capable truck, for forward maintenance.

Like the T-90, this system may not be fielded in substantial numbers with Russian forces for some time, due to budgetary constraints.

* I have put the source itself here since his topic is in Arabic.

Lion of Babylon (tank) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Most of Iraqi arsenal of T-72 were Soviet-made. Iraq had the standard T-72M at the time. Chechen rebels anti tank armaments was mainly RPG-7. Aside from Chechen and Iraq wars, how do you explain the best performance of Jordanian army that used Western tanks among other Arab armies which used Soviet tanks in all Arab-Israeli wars? Russians themselves admitted their tanks serious flaws. Afterall, it's well known that Soviets followed the doctrine of quantity over quality, so, they tried to make up the inferiority of their tanks by producing more numbers.

Your lines are purely hypothetical and not based on facts.
In fact, it's a core concept. When the fuel and ammunition are stored randomly in the body of the tank without giving any consideration to the safety of the crews, it becomes a core issue. Furthermore, fuel storage on the rear and sides of the tank make the ones on the rear vulnerable even to 14 mm machine guns. Soviets thought they would avoid threats with lower height and were the first ones who resorted to hard and soft kills systems to make up their tanks flaws. Even their BMPs were a joke, you would disable a BMP-1/2 by a Molotove thrown on it's engine vent on the front, and destroy it with 12.7 mm DShK at the feul tanks stores inside the doors on the rear in urban areas like what happened in Syria. You can find many stupid flaws in Russian armored vesicles. Early versions of T-72 used steel and sand and ceramics in the middle as an armor while the West adopted composite armor (Chopham), which is now the standard.

One tank incident in which it survived doesn't mean anything, we don't know what was used against this tank, it could be a 10 kg of TNT mine. I didn't say all Easern tanks don't have composite armour. I said it was invented and used on Western tanks before Soviet tanks by about 20 years. I sated specifically that early versions of T-72 used steel stuffed with ceramics and sand as an armor while Western ones adopted the composite armor which was later adopted as a standard armor by all countries. I am well aware that Russian, Chinese tanks use composite armor, however their tanks still less protected than their Western counterparts.

Tank Protection Levels

Al Khalid
vs KE (mm)
Turret: 645
Glacis: 435-455

vs CE (mm)
Turret: 1060 (1160 w/ERA)
Glacis: 540 (670w/ERA)

Arjun
vs KE (mm)
Turret: 500-570
Glacis: 410

vs CE (mm)
Turret: 650-830
Glacis:730

Ukrainian T-84 w/K-5 ERA

vs KE (mm)
Turret: 850-1100
Glacis: 680-720

vs CE (mm)
Turret: 1250-1600
Glacis: 960-1040

Chinese Type-99 w/ERA

vs KE (mm)
Turret: 740-800
Glacis: 450-630

vs CE (mm)
Turret: 1050
Glacis: 560-860

Merkava Mk4
vs KE (mm)
Turret: 600-1030

vs CE (mm)
Turret: 750-1340



Leopard 2A5
vs KE (mm)
Turret: 850-930
Glacis:620
Lower front hull:620

vs CE (mm)
Turret: 1730-1960
Glacis:750
Lower front hull:750

Challenger 2
vs KE (mm)
Turret: 920-960
Glacis:660
Lower front hull: 590

vs CE (mm)
Turret: 1450-1700
Glacis:1000
Lower front hull: 860

T-72B "Super Dolly Parton" & S w/K-1 ERA

vs KE (mm)
Turret: 280-550-690
Glacis: 485
Lower front hull: 250

vs CE (mm)
Turret: 580-850
Glacis: 670-910
Lower front hull: 250

Leclerc

vs KE (mm)
Turret: 400-700+
Glacis: 600

vs CE (mm)
Turret: 1400-1750
Glacis 1060

M1A2 SEP
vs KE (mm)
Turret: 940-960 Glacis:560-590
Lower front hull:580-650

vs CE (mm)
Turret: 1320-1620 Glacis:510-1050
Lower front hull:800-970

Main smoothbore guns:


Chinese Type-II 125mm 550mm at 2km

Pakistani Niaza 125mm DU 550mm at 2km

Iranian 125mm tungsten 470mm at 3km

Ukraine 125mm Vitiaz round 760mm at 2km (2002)

Russian 125mm BM-42M "Lekalo"? tungsten 600-650mm at 2km

German 120mm/L55 DM-63 tungsten 720mm at 2km (2006)

US M829A3 120mm DU 765mm at 2km (2003) (Russian estimate 795mm)

US/Egyptian KEW-A2 120mm tungsten 660mm at 2km

Chinese 120mm tungsten 550mm at 2km

UK L-28 120mm APFSDS 770mm at 2km (200X)

 

[BLACKEAGLE]

 

[BLACKEAGLE]

Phoenix M60 MBT upgrade showing enhanced amour package and RUAG Land Systems 120 mm Compact Tank Gun (KADDB)

The Land Electronic Defence System (LEDS) combines active signature management, soft-kill and hard-kill mechanisms to provide full spectrum active protection to armoured vehicles. Full hemispherical coverage is provided to detect incoming threats and alert the crew. When installed in full configuration, the LEDS-150 offers MBT-comparable protection to light and medium combat vehicles against engagement by weapons like RPG-7s, anti-tank guided-missiles, KE ammunition, mortars and artillery shells.

The LEDS-150 is an active defence system and typically comprises laser warning sensors, ADC-150 active defence controller AD, a number of munition confirmation and tracking sensors, and high-speed directed launchers, which allow the combination of soft- and hard-kill countermeasure deployment capability to the platform, optional displays, and interconnecting harnesses. The hard kill feature of the LEDS-150 product is characterised by its capability to physically destroy the efficiency of the terminal ballistic capability of attacking munitions without residual penetration of the protected vehicle.

The hard kill system detects and tracks a single or simultaneous threats and calculates if the attacking munition will hit the platform or not. The system determines the best inertial intercept position and provides the slew and firing commands to the launchers. The Mongoose-1 countermeasure missile is launched at a predetermined time to intercept and neutralise the detected munition off-board at a distance of between 5 metres and 15 metres from the vehicle to minimise the collateral damage to own forces.

Mongoose 1

• Effective against RPGs, anti-armour missiles,
recoilless rifles and anti-tank guns firing HE,
HESH and HEAT ammunition.

• Upgrade versions provide full-spectrum
protection, including long-rod penetrators (FS
rounds) firing against medium armour.

• Low collateral damage, allowing urban
operations.

• Threat intercept at more than 5 m.

• Simultaneous threats, including tandem firings,
can be countered.

• Full 360° azimuth and -15° to -45° elevation
coverage.

• LEDS150 can accommodate up to 12 ready-tofire
rounds.

 

[BLACKEAGLE]

Jordan enhances M60 tank fleet

Christopher F Foss

The first Jordanian Armed Forces (JAF) M60A3 tank battalion upgraded with the Raytheon Integrated Fire Control System (IFCS) is now fully operational. This major upgrade is being carried out by the King Abdullah II Design and Development Bureau (KADDB) in partnership with Raytheon. Under current plans it is expected that a total of four JAF M60A3 battalions fitted with the IFCS will be operational by 2007.

KADDB is now looking at a number of additional upgrades to the M60A3, including the installation of an all-electric gun control system to replace the current hydraulic system and a roof-mounted commanders independent thermal viewer (CITV). The installation of the latter will enable hunter/killer target engagements to take place. Raytheon is regarded by KADDB as a “strategic partner“ and will also integrate the IFCS into other platforms in the future. A soft kill defensive aids system is expected to be integrated into an upgraded M60A3, followed by a hard kill system.

The Raytheon IFCS is also being installed in the Al Hussein hybrid tank, which is an ex-UK Challenger 1 tank fitted with the Swiss RUAG Land Systems 120mm smooth bore gun. The UK has supplied some 400 Challenger 1 tanks to the JAF under a government-to-government deal. The JAF are also taking delivery of upgraded M113 series APC, and KADDB has an agreement to market these vehicles to selected countries in the region. Being shown at IDEX 2005 is the Phoenix M60 upgrade, which includes a 120mm smooth bore gun, IFCS, appliqué passive armour and a more powerful 950hp AVDS-1790 series diesel engine.