Talk:M60 tank

message: The US Army Technical Manual (TM), also referred to as the dash ten (-10), which is (or was during the cold war) the operators manual for army vehicles. The cover of the TM-10 for the M60 tank said, "M60 Combat Tank, Full Tracked."  No where does the US Army manual use the words Patton for the M60 tank.
Additionally, the term MBT (Main Battle Tank) was never offically used by the US Army until after the M60 battle tank entered service in 1960. 
The M60 Combat Tank was offically the US Army's first MBT.
Request that Wikipedia correct the title page for the M60 tank to read "M60 Combat Tank", or "M60 Main Battle Tank."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.60.156.2 (talk) 20:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia uses the WP:COMMONNAME for it's articles, which aren't always the official name. The article does already note that it was called the "105 mm Gun Full Tracked Combat Tank M60" Hohum (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet "Patton" isn't, or at least wasn't, the common name, either. If for no other reason than its ambiguity, I don't think I heard "Patton" used much when on active.  Anmccaff (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. They were just called "60s" or by their modification "A1", "A2", "A3". No one in my units called them "Patton's", and the name wasn't in the manuals we used. On the other hand, that was then and this is now, and I think "Patton" has entered mainstream use. I guess folks just got used to thinking of "Abrams" and "Bradley" by name and assumed the '60s had a commonly used name, too. As a result, I have no problem at all with the "M60 Patton" article name, though I think "M60 Main Battle Tank" would work as well. I saw "MBT" or "Main Battle Tank" on all our maintenance and training manuals. Rklawton (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it entered mainstream use so much as it entered fanboy and foamer use.  Compare the ngrams for general English, Brit-speak and Murrican, and I think that points to this.  Britons like cute names for tanks, and love writing fan-books, while the only old nickname that we USAanians used was "Sherman."  That's changed now, and as you say, a lot of it is back-formation, but a hella lot of it comes from Wiki itself, and that is a Bad Thing. Add to this that Jarhoovians did use the "Patton" name more, and the USMC is, like the USAF, a publicity machine with a small fighting force attached. It's also worth noting that uses of "Patton" could be for any of the 46-60 series.  Anmccaff (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

text: PS:  Of course, I forgot the Sheridan, but then again, most of us would like to forget the Sheridan.  Anmccaff (talk) 23:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: , and all: any reasons not to move this to M60 Tank or such?  The "Patton", as discussed, doesn't really belong.  Anmccaff (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

text: * That seems fine, but tank should be lower case since it is not proper or specific name, i.e. "M60 tank". -Fnlayson (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

text: I lean toward the first, because it covers both the usual (but later, IMS) MBT,and the fact that it was a series of vehicles that differ pretty profoundly.  I think anyone who expected a (begin personal prejudice) real tank (/personal prejudice) might be pretty upset if an A2 showed up. Anmccaff (talk) 21:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Going once...I think this aminal should be moved, and we seem to have one-and-a-third votes for M60 series main battle tank.  Any other opinions?Anmccaff (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: M60 Combat Tank

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on M60 Patton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120207132952/http://www.imi-israel.com/news.aspx?FolderID=13&docID=678 to http://www.imi-israel.com/news.aspx?FolderID=13&docID=678
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090418012635/http://kaddb.com:80/static/project2.shtm to http://www.kaddb.com/static/project2.shtm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Looking at this, I can't help but wonder if Wiki hasn't fallen into the middle of a disinformation campaign.  Every older vehicle will stop looking like yesterday's news, and be seen as a current threat, whether it is or not..  20:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you explain your concerns a little more clearly? Is this related to a specific edit or section? Rklawton (talk) 01:24, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Steady string of citeless anonym-edits claiming that all the Israeli A3s(?) are being converted to missile carriers.  Yeah, maybe they all are.  Anmccaff (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, thanks. Ignore them. Without sources, just revert the edits. Rklawton (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Pereh]] 

message: http://ciar.org/ttk/mbt/armor/armor-magazine/armor-mag.1998.nd/6aesch98.pdf
This is a fairly decent cite claiming that no US units have been assigned M60s for a good 20 years.  (This doesn't mean there aren't some stored someplace, but that no units, active or reserve, who have trained with these as their main weapons for nearly 20 years.  Are there any cites handy that say otherwise?  Anmccaff (talk) 14:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guard use 

message: I think this is notable, but the sourcing suffers, a lot, from pressreleaseitis.   Anmccaff (talk) 17:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  M60A3 SLEP 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on M60 Patton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304104953/http://www.ghqmodels.com/pdf/24Morocco.pdf to http://www.ghqmodels.com/pdf/24Morocco.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927020719/http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/12027/limit/recent: to http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/12027/limit/recent:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I though the M60 Patton was retired for the A1 Abrams?  the reason i asks it said it still in service on the Wikipedia. Ill see if i can get a screen shot of it. 
  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MajorJared29 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The US has replaced the M60 with the M1 Abrams.  There are [other] operators of the M60 now. Read through the Service history and Operators sections of the article for more details. -Finlayson (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question: replaced or ? 

message: I was wondering if there was any sources to verify this statement. 
"A single M60 purchased by Argentina for test purposes, stands as a monument at the Argentinian Army´s NCOs Academy, in Campo de Mayo, near Buenos Aires."
Note: I do realize that the statement will need to be edited to have proper grammar if it is verified. 
Thank you. Dictonary1 (talk) 04:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can anyone verify this statement? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on M60 Patton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160707165807/http://www.i24news.tv/app.php/en/news/israel/diplomacy-defense/140425-israeli-military-retires-patton-tanks to http://www.i24news.tv/app.php/en/news/israel/diplomacy-defense/140425-israeli-military-retires-patton-tanks
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 18, according to this .Obviously this is not a reliable source, but it does give a strangely definitive and precise figure. Irondome (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I have found a reference confirming 18, and have provisionally added it to mainspace. It is from Military Forces net. Unsure if this is a robust enough source, but this claim has been lacking any source for some time. Now we at least have a number. Irondome (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, thanks for the additions to the article. Appreciated! Irondome (talk) 15:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. This is a welcome break from the usual form of IP multi-edit. Qwirkle (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many M60s in OPFOR surrogate role? 

message: I feel that is incorrect to list this as a specialized version of the of the M60 AVLB.  Sure the photo is an example of a Guard unit deploying the MICLIC in training.  But in reality the MICLIC could be mounted on just about any M60 chasis. Many M728s were fitted with the MICLIC. My point is that the MICLIC  should be added as an optional component for the M60 series in the same way as the M9 Dozer option.190.236.255.187 (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  M60 AVLM MICLIC 

message: The M9 Dozer Blade assembly that is authorized as an optional component for a wide variety of vehicles, including the M48, M9ACE and M105 DUCE as well as the M728 and has been used on all of these different vehicles.
Following this logic opens a Pandora's box of equipment that could be fitted as tactical modifications of the vehicle...
Examples include 
the M58 MICLIC
A wide variety of machine guns could optionally be pintle mounted at the loader's hatch
Mine Flails,Rollers, Rakes of all kinds,
Winching systems
Snorkels for fording
Searchlights
etc …
The M60 was never assembled and delivered to Army service with the M9 already incorporated.   These vehicles were modified in theater at Depot -30 level maintenance. Once placed as such on a unit's property books they were given a specialized Line Item Number (LIN) to reflect the modification. The reverse is just as true … Depot maintenance could remove an M9 blade from a vehicle and revert the modified LIN of the unit's property books.190.234.163.170 (talk) 21:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don’t think your conclusion is supported by the argument before it. Regardless of who puts it on where, a tank dozer is a different animule from a tank, and a standardized conversion should be mentioned somehow. Qwirkle (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  M9 Dozer Blade attachment for M60 

message: The current version of the article states that only the AVLB and M728 saw service in Vietnam.   The M88 was there too … 
Should it be mentioned or is it too different to be included here??190.234.163.179 (talk) 13:33, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a link for M88 Recovery Vehicle in this article. Its details such as combat service probably belong there instead of here. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Details belong there, but a brief mention here would be useful. Qwirkle (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vietnam service .... M88  

message: The Patton main page lists several vehicle variants and their variants (m60 AVLB, m728, and m88). Wiki links are provided to all of these vehicles and each wiki article is well developed and documents these variants and their respective sub variants.  I feel that these sub variants of the m60 avlb, M728, and the M88 should be removed from the m60 patton main page leaving their links to the respective vehicle's wiki page with the intent of streamlining the m60 main page and maintaining focus on the M60.   What do you think? Chasnic2 (talk) 22:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree. The coverage here is minimal, but needed.  (The word “Patton,” however, is not.) Qwirkle (talk) 15:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Variant of a variant? 

message: Recently I have had valid and informative entries deleted from the article by another editor with the reason stating that the article is too big.  Also a tag a has been placed on the article stating that it may be too long to read or navigate comfortably.
Is there really a size limit to articles in Wikipedia or is this a judgement call by the editor in question?  I would appreciate it if the reasoning and sugestiones for improvement could be discussed here.   The M60 Patton is in use and new information is available.
Comments and reasoning would be appreciated.  
Thanks
22:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's still no reason at all to be reverting like this. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: * I haven't seen any major reverts to this article recently except the copyright ones a week ago. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:09, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

text: I don't think in an article that's already 2,600 words oversize you should be adding an instance of a use of 12 tanks. It's trivial, and excessive detail. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 07:32, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

text: I've moved the new article to :M60 Patton non U.S. operators and done some tidying up, and removed the content from the main article. Tables are tricky to build. So hard. I've got a wee sample mocked up at User:Diannaa/sandbox that you can copy to your own sandbox to experiment with. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article too big? 

message: "featured a specially designed turret for the M162 gun/missile launcher that greatly reduced the frontal arc in comparison to the M60A1"
I do not understand what "the frontal arc" is in this context. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  What? 

message: I'm new to editing on here so bear with me, but I wanted some advise on editing one of the variant's descriptions. For the M60A1E1, the description notes that it used a modified prototype M60A1 hull citing Hunnicut. The gate guardian of my hometown's Amvets post is actually the only surviving example of the three that I know of, and it is most definitely a standard M48 hull that they probably had to modify to fit the new turret. I have photos of the placard for the display even stating it as such, but I would rather ask before completely removing someone's citation. Any advise would be much appreciated. DerJager97 (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  M60 Variant description clarification 

message: There's probably mistakes in page. I checked source: Nordeen, Lon; Isby, David (2010). M60 vs T-62: Cold War Combatants 1956–92. 
There's were absolutely nothing about 50 T-72s destroyed directly by M60s. Nor there about 30-40 T-72s. 
Also look, this page cannot provide clear information about number of T-72s destroyed, 50? 40? Or 30? Which is right number? I will indicate this on the page Bekbakbek (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  T-72s? 

message: The proposed M60A4 upgrade as detailed in the citations for the "M60A4" section emerged in the mid to late 1980s at the behest of the National Guard. The M60AX was a distinct project from a few years prior focusing on a new powerplant, that wasn't adapted but later presented by Teledyne as a private venture (see: The World's Great Tanks: From 1916 to the Present Day by  Roger Ford, or Jane's Armour and Artillery: 1984). The assertion that the M60A4 is the M60AX, despite the cited sources that the M60A4 section was based off making no mention of it, or that the M60A4 wasn't the actual designation of the proposed upgrade, is extremely dubious. Please don't rename, make sweeping changes or add dramatic assertions that contradict the existing citations to an entire section without at least adding credible new sources. 
I would greatly appreciate constructive dialogue on this issue. In the meantime I've reverted the M60A4 section to baseline, strictly relying on the citations used as per best practice.
--NelsonEdit2 (talk) 00:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  M60A4 

message: i know, mentioned in it. but it deserves its own section in this article(under foreign variants). there is an article for ready to copy and paste. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK  15:36, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  add M60T to article 

message: This is an article on the M60, why the hell does it have so much text going on and on about achievments of the US marines in the Gulf war? That section should contain specifically only information on the performance of the M60A1 and the threats it faced, why is it going on and on about how marines took X prisoners and etc? I didn't know US infantry was composed of M60A1s, not only is this completely unnecesary (imagine if the T-34 article went on and on describing the combat and kills of every unit that used it instead of just keeping it short and only about the T-34), but it might mislead the reader into thinking this was an achievment of the M60 (when most of those tank kills as far as i know were done by marine TOWs, not M60s) D1d2d3d29 (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Just look at the "service history" section of the sheridan, it keeps it's topic focused solely on the sheridan and it's performance and deployment, it did not go on endlessly discussing every battle the 4th Cavalry Regiment took part in and how many kills they earned  D1d2d3d29 (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The gulf war paragraph of the "US service history" section needs to be cut down in half at least