Talk:Patton tank

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Patton I, II and III 

message: 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)
thread_title:  M48 vs T-55 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Patton 

message: 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.--Pattont/c 22:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retain this summary article 

message: 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)
thread_title: M60 Combat Tank, Full Tracked, U.S. Army