Military Review

Main battle tank M60T Sabra (Israel / Turkey)

74
Turkish Ground Forces have a rather specific fleet tanks, where you can find both modern and long-obsolete designs. Along with the relatively new German-built Leopard 2 tanks, the old American M48s are also in operation. At the same time, however, the command is trying to update the fleet of armored vehicles, including through the modernization of existing models. The result of this approach was the appearance of the M60T Sabra project, thanks to which the troops received 170 deeply modernized tanks.


The Sabra project was launched at the beginning of the two thousandth year and was intended to carry out a deep modernization of the available equipment. Not being able to build their own modern tanks or buy foreign models, the Turkish command was forced to seek help from foreign experts. The development project for the modernization of the existing technology in 2002 was commissioned by the Israeli company Israel Military Industries (IMI), which had extensive experience in creating and updating armored vehicles. The contractor was required to develop a project for the deep modernization of existing M60A3 Patton tanks of American construction, which would significantly improve their performance. The project received the designation Sabra.

Due to the great age and the corresponding technical appearance of the existing M60A3 tanks, the terms of reference for the Sabra project involved the processing of all the main features of the vehicle. It was necessary to improve the characteristics of the power plant, strengthen the protection and install new weapons of increased power. Thus, IMI specialists had to actually create a new tank based on existing units. At the same time, however, the existing units should be widely used, since the construction of tanks from scratch was not planned. Fortunately, IMI has already had experience in upgrading M60 family vehicles. Previously, she had to develop such projects in the interests of the Israeli army.


Drill tank M60T Sabra. Photo by Militaryedge.org


Initially, the Turkish military was offered the existing version of modernization, created for the Israeli army. In this case, the Turkish armed forces could get a slightly modified tank series "Magah" version 7C. The Israeli industry has already had experience in upgrading American tanks, and it was this option for upgrading equipment that was originally proposed to the customer. Subsequently, a variant of the Sabra project based on “Magi 7C” received the additional designation Mk 1.

After reviewing the project Sabra Mk 1, the Turkish side demanded to make some changes in it related to the design of the power plant, towers, etc. All these wishes were taken into account in the updated project Sabra Mk 2, which retained the basic features of the base Mk 1, but had a lot of relatively small differences that affect the characteristics.

The upgraded M60 tank had to keep the main units, such as the hull, tower and chassis, which should not have been modified to simplify and reduce the cost of the upgrade process. However, to improve certain characteristics, it was proposed to install various additional equipment on the base parts. Thus, the overall architecture and layout of the tank during the modernization remained the same. In front of the hull, the command and control unit remained, in the center, the fighting compartment remained, and the feed was still given to the engine and transmission.

A characteristic feature of the M60 family of tanks, including the M60A3, is the hull and turret, made of homogeneous armor, which does not meet modern requirements and does not allow for an acceptable level of protection against existing anti-tank weapons. For this reason, the Sabra project involved strengthening the body armor of the base tank by installing additional elements. In the draft version of the Mk 1, it was proposed to use additional mounted booking modules installed on top of the tank's own armor. The modules were planned to be mounted on the upper frontal part and on the side screens of the case. In addition, frontal and side modules for the tower were offered, and an open basket was placed on its stern.


Exhibition sample. Photo of Wikimedia Commons


Further development of additional protection systems continued through the installation of new equipment. The Mk 2 project provided for the reinforcement of hinged armor with dynamic protection. In addition, to increase survivability in combat, Sabra tanks of all modifications must be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system and smoke grenade launchers.

To simplify the assembly of upgraded tanks, the base M60A3 keeps the existing hull and turret during repairs and upgrades. Additional protection is mounted directly on their surface. Due to this, in particular, the tank Sabra retains external similarity with the base sample.

The Magrah Sabra Mk 1 project implied the use of a Continental AVDS-1790-5A diesel engine with HP 908 power. Such a power plant did not suit the customer, which is why the MTU MT 2 KA-881 HP engine with the power of 501 hp was proposed in the Mk 1000 project. One of the main advantages that influenced the choice of the customer was the possibility of licensed production of MTU engines in Turkish enterprises. Also replaced the transmission. Instead of the Allison CD850-6BX (Mk.I) product, the tank was equipped with the Renk 304S system.

Chassis base tank has not changed significantly. It contains six track rollers with an individual torsion suspension on each side, three supporting rollers and additional shock absorbers. The guide wheels remained in the front of the hull, leading - in the stern.

Main battle tank M60T Sabra (Israel / Turkey)
Scheme of installation of additional reservation on the base building and the tower. Figure Alternathistory.com


One of the main requirements for the Sabra project was to strengthen weapons. M60 tanks of all major modifications were equipped with M68 rifled 105 mm caliber guns, the parameters of which no longer allow effective destruction of modern armored vehicles with a high level of protection. For this reason, IMI specialists had to develop a new weapon system with a more powerful main weapon. When creating an updated combat compartment, the available groundwork and ready-made units borrowed from Israeli tanks were used. It is noteworthy that during the creation of the upgraded tower did not have to significantly refine the existing units.

The basic one weapons Sabra tanks of all modifications was a smooth-bore gun MG253 caliber 120 mm, designed for the tank Merkava Mk 3. The barrel of the gun is equipped with an ejector and heat shield. 42 unitary shots are placed in the fighting compartments. It is argued that the use of a large-bore smoothbore gun made it possible to significantly increase the firepower of the tank, as well as increase the range of effective fire and the power of ammunition. Thus, in terms of the main armament, Sabra tanks have a great advantage over the base M60 of all major modifications.

The tower of the modernized tank Sabra Mk 1 is equipped with electric swivel drives and a hydraulic system for lifting the gun mount. This equipment allows you to direct weapons in any direction with an elevation from -9 ° to + 20 °. In the project Sabra Mk 2 was proposed to use only electric guidance systems.

As an additional weapon, Sabra tanks were to receive machine guns and smoke grenade launchers. In one installation with a gun, it was proposed to mount a rifle-caliber machine gun, such as M240 or MG3. On the commander's turret provided installation for anti-aircraft machine gun. At the request of the customer, it placed a large-caliber machine gun M85. Two blocks of 60-mm smoke grenade launchers are mounted on the cheekbones of the turret.


The parade build tanks. Photo by Militaryedge.org


The upgraded tank is equipped with a Knight digital fire control system, which includes various equipment from El-Op Industries Ltd and Elbit Systems. The OMS is integrated with other equipment used for tank control and communications. Day and night instruments were used to observe and attack targets in all weather conditions and at any time of the day. Thus, the gunner’s workplace is equipped with a combined sight with an increase to x8 in day mode and to x5,3 at night. The available laser rangefinder allows you to determine the distance to the target within 200-9995 m with an accuracy of 5 m.

During the upgrade to Sabra Mk 1 / 2, the M60A3 tank saves a crew of four. In front of the hull is a driver, three other tankers (commander, gunner and loader) are in the fighting compartment.

After installing new equipment and additional booking, the tank dimensions remain the same. The length of the vehicle is 6,95 m, width 3,63 m, height - 3,27 m. The combat weight of the Sabra tank depends on the modification. In the first version, this parameter was equal to 55 T, in the version Mk 2 - 59 T. The increase in mass was affected by armor enhancement, a new power plant and some other factors.

The Sabra Mk 1 tank, equipped with a Continental AVDS-1790-5A engine, was supposed to have a power density at the 16,5 HP level. per ton. In the modification of Sabra Mk 2, this parameter has grown to 16,95 HP. per ton. With such characteristics, the first version of the armored vehicle could reach a maximum speed of up to 48 km / h, the second - up to 55 km / h. The power reserve per fueling of all modifications is set at 450 km. Tanks of all modifications are able to climb the slope of the 60% steepness, move with the 30% roll, climb the 91 cm wall and cross the trench 2,6 m wide.


Tank Sabra on parade. Photo by Militaryedge.org


The contract for the development of the project for the modernization of the M60 family of battle tanks was signed in 2002 of the year. After that, for several years, IMI worked to create a project and fulfill customer requirements. In 2005, construction began on an experienced Sabra tank, which was introduced in late autumn. In the future, the company-developer and the armed forces of Turkey conducted the full range of necessary tests, based on the results of which certain improvements were made and a decision was made about the future of new technology.

The Turkish military approved the Sabra Mk 2 project and decided to start mass production of new tanks. In 2007, a contract was signed to carry out the repair of M60A3 tanks in the army with the modernization of a new project. The new machines were adopted under the designation M60T Sabra. In accordance with the agreement of 2007, the Israeli side transferred to the Turkish industry a number of necessary technologies and licenses for the production of some equipment. At the same time, however, additional booking modules were made only in Israel and were delivered to Turkey as a finished product. The necessary components were made by various enterprises and delivered to 2-th main technical service center, where the equipment was repaired and new equipment was installed.

The contract for the supply of tanks M60T Sabra lasted until the spring of the year 2009. During this time, Turkish and Israeli enterprises manufactured 170 retrofit kits and installed them on the M60A3 front-line tanks. By the end of the last decade, all these machines returned to service, becoming one of the newest and most advanced tanks in the Turkish army.

According to reports, the Turkish Army currently has approximately 930 M60 tanks of several modifications, including the M60T Sabra. Thus, more than seven and a half hundred armored vehicles belong to outdated modifications and are seriously inferior to the modernized technology for a number of characteristics. As follows from the published information, the modernization of the remaining tanks of the M60 family is not planned. The implementation of such a project is associated with large expenditures that do not fit into the Turkish military budget. In addition, over the past few years, the Turkish army has been making plans to switch to the newest Altay tank with the abandonment of outdated technology.


Unloading M60T tanks near the Turkish-Syrian border, end of 2015. Photo by Alternalhistory.com


After completing the contract for the supply of equipment for the modernization of tanks, the Israeli company IMI continued to develop the project Sabra. The result of further work was the emergence of a variant of the Sabra Mk 3, which differs from its predecessors by a number of characteristic features. In this project, it is proposed to use additional reservation modules, created on the basis of the Mk 4 Mk-1 project, as well as warning systems for laser or radar exposure. Instead of a turret, it is proposed to install a remote-controlled combat module with a large-caliber machine-gun on the commander's turret. In addition, the chassis gets a caterpillar borrowed from Israeli-designed tanks.

As far as is known, the Sabra Mk 3 project has not yet interested potential customers, primarily Turkey. The proposed upgrade option has noticeable advantages over the previous ones, however, it has a higher cost. In addition, the plans of the Turkish command concerning the development of armored vehicles have an impact on its prospects. Thus, it can be assumed that the Sabra Mk 3 project will never leave the stage of preliminary development and promotion in the market. Nevertheless, it cannot be ruled out that this project may be of interest to third countries, which are still armed with old American-made tanks. Ordering retrofit kits will allow you to upgrade your equipment with a noticeable increase in its performance to an acceptable level, but at the same time save compared to purchasing new modern technology.

The project to modernize the M60A3 tanks called Sabra is of particular interest from a technical point of view. By using ready-made components and developing some new products, Israeli specialists managed to create an original project for updating outdated armored vehicles with a significant increase in its characteristics. The main advantages of new projects are the use of 120-mm guns and a modern digital fire control system. Such innovations allowed to get rid of outdated 105-mm guns and raise the firepower of tanks to a high enough level, comparable to the leading foreign developments.

Nevertheless, there are some specific drawbacks, primarily related to the modernization nature of the project. M60 tanks were equipped with homogeneous armor, which imposed serious restrictions on increasing the level of protection. Even after installing additional reservations, including those with dynamic protection (Sabra Mk 2), the level of protection of the tank may not be enough to counter modern armor-piercing shells or anti-tank missiles.


General view of the tank Sabra Mk 3. Figure Alternalhistory.com


Another disadvantage of the Sabra tank is its relatively low mobility. Even after installing a powerful 1000-strong engine, the M60T has a power density less than 17 hp. per ton, which limits the maximum speed, throughput and other mobility parameters. As a result, in a number of parameters Sabra is inferior to modern and some obsolete tanks. However, a further increase in engine power may not be possible due to an unacceptable increase in the load on the undercarriage.

The Sabra project was developed in accordance with the 2002 order of the year, and the modernization of tanks was carried out in 2007-2009. As a result, the ground forces of Turkey received 170 deeply modernized armored vehicles with enhanced characteristics. This allowed to a certain extent to update the material part of the tank units, but the proportion of the upgraded tanks M60T is not too large. For comparison, in recent years, Turkey has acquired the order of 350 tanks Leopard 2. Nevertheless, the Sabra project is considered successful, because it allowed, without significant expenses, to update a part of the outdated equipment and improve its characteristics.


On the materials of the sites:
http://military-today.com/
http://army-technology.com/
http://militaryfactory.com/
http://militaryedge.org/
http://alternathistory.com/
74 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Magic archer
    Magic archer 15 January 2016 06: 08 New
    14
    It’s a worthy modernization of the old car. Having an 120 mm gun, a new SUO and additional reservation M-60 can already argue with newer machines! By the way, I read somewhere that my forehead is holding a shot of an 125 mm gun (most likely there was a T-72 shell). the designers have a lot to learn. And then you can’t look at the T-72B3 without tears. It seems that everyone doesn’t give a damn about the life of tankers
    1. Linkor9s21
      Linkor9s21 15 January 2016 06: 31 New
      +1
      Our designers have a lot to learn. And you won’t look at the T-72B3 without tears. It seems that everyone doesn’t give a damn about the life of tankers

      Why is the T-72B3 so bad? at the tank biathlon is not very bad at showing itself.
      1. Magic archer
        Magic archer 15 January 2016 06: 44 New
        25
        In general, with a good modernization, the T-72 will serve for a long time. But, as always, we went along a simplified path. Dynamic protection at the level of the 80s of the last century. The 5 contact no longer corresponds to the realities. And for some reason they didn’t put the Relic. And how Dz blocks are just a SONG! There, not only a shot from an RPG will fly in but anything! Here you can clearly see where if something needs to be shot. And we will compare the Sabra and Teshki towers. And the comparison will clearly not be in favor of our tank.
        A big hello to the minusers. If you can’t justify, then minus more, wretched
        1. inkass_98
          inkass_98 15 January 2016 07: 56 New
          10
          Recently, there have been so many Uriah-patriots who don’t feed bread, but let them blame someone for an unapproved way of thinking.
          I completely agree that biathlon is one thing, and a real fight is another. You can’t save on people's lives, it’s better to make fewer modernized tanks, but to make modernization worthy. Take the same Type-96 that the Chinese brought - it is all in dynamic defense, the tower is completely protected. In a real battle, despite the fact that they lost in the competition, I would prefer the Chinese, all other things being equal.
          1. Setrac
            Setrac 15 January 2016 13: 10 New
            +2
            Quote: inkass_98
            You can’t save on people's lives, it’s better to make fewer modernized tanks, but to make modernization worthy.

            Unfortunately, a soldier is the same consumable as equipment, the number of barrels per kilometer of the front is of decisive importance.
        2. GRAY
          GRAY 15 January 2016 09: 39 New
          +8
          Quote: Magic Archer
          A. Contact 5 no longer corresponds to reality.

          Contact-5 can destroy the core of a projectile - what else is needed?
          Quote: Magic Archer
          .And how are the blocks dz is just a SONG!

          The blocks are positioned correctly, they cover on the sides a "puff" of composite armor plates so that the cumulative jet cannot pass between them.
          .And compare the tower of Sabra and Teshki. And the comparison will clearly not be in favor of our tank.

          Tower "Sabra" to the tower T-72, as before China cancer.
          1. Magic archer
            Magic archer 15 January 2016 10: 04 New
            +1
            There was an article about dz. And the contact was deprecated. He doesn’t hold a modern bopp. As for the installation, I’m already tired of explaining my point of view. Reread and maybe it will reach. Do you say that they are worth it?! That is, the gap between the plates into which anything whatever you think calmly flies NORMAL ?! Well, as for the comparison of towers, this is just my point of view and I don’t impose it on you
            1. GRAY
              GRAY 15 January 2016 10: 31 New
              +1
              Quote: Magic Archer
              . According to your words it turns out that they are right?

              Yes, right.
              Quote: Magic Archer
              ! That is, the gap between the plates into which anything you think calmly flies NORMAL ?!

              "Anything" will not fly there, and even at an ideal angle. And I consider additional protection of weak points to be a normal practice and I do not see anything special in this.
              Quote: Magic Archer
              He does not hold a modern bops.

              I will tell you a terrible secret: there is no such dynamic defense in the world that is capable of "holding BOPS", any remote sensing only reduces the likelihood of defeat, which is a combination of many factors.
              1. Vadim237
                Vadim237 15 January 2016 22: 09 New
                0
                In general, such dynamic protection is being developed and, according to calculations, it can protect against BOPs flying at a speed of 3000 meters per second.
            2. nemets
              nemets 15 January 2016 21: 01 New
              +1
              a shot under the turret in the forehead of the "sabra", and the turret is jammed. on the T-72 it is extremely difficult to get under the turret, plus 72 has a low silhouette and speed, which is an undoubted plus. in a face-to-face confrontation, the "sabra" will lose.
          2. tchoni
            tchoni 15 January 2016 14: 20 New
            -3
            By what criteria is the Sabra tower to the T72 tower as to Beijing with cancer? Security, usability, visibility?
            1. GRAY
              GRAY 15 January 2016 16: 13 New
              +4
              Quote: tchoni
              By what criteria is the Sabra tower to the T72 tower as to Beijing with cancer? Security, usability, visibility?

              For security in the frontal projection - at least.
              In terms of booking, it is weaker than the T-72 in general everywhere, therefore, it was surrounded by dollars with its dynamic defense, like Abramovich.
              1. tchoni
                tchoni 16 January 2016 06: 51 New
                -2
                For security in the frontal projection - at least.
                [/ Quote]
                Do you think this is enough to talk about the huge technical defense of the M60 tower?
            2. cast iron
              cast iron 16 January 2016 00: 20 New
              +3
              In defense, the M60 tower merges even the very first T72A into a clean one. Learn the mat part.
              1. tchoni
                tchoni 16 January 2016 06: 53 New
                -3
                I'm afraid this only applies to the frontal projection ..
                But in terms of the review and the convenience of crew accommodation, the T-72 tower knocks down the M60 tower
                1. cast iron
                  cast iron 16 January 2016 21: 58 New
                  0
                  Why did you fantasize about "convenience" and "review"? I have not seen panoramic sights on the M60, as well as huge triplexes. There are none. And the huge size is an extra percentage of the likelihood of being hit by ANY PT ammunition, starting from the 60s of the last century. This is for you to think about.
                  1. tchoni
                    tchoni 17 January 2016 07: 33 New
                    -1
                    Go to the kubinka - there seems to have been m60. And jump to the commander’s place ..
                    1. cast iron
                      cast iron 18 January 2016 00: 46 New
                      -1
                      I was in Kubinka there are no panoramic sights on the M60 and never was. Learn the materiel.
                      1. tchoni
                        tchoni 19 January 2016 03: 38 New
                        0
                        But very convenient triplex around the perimeter of the tower. Do you know that the 72ki panoramic sight rotates with the sunroof? And in order to look around, the commander has to constantly twist this not-so-light hatch ... Twenty minutes to twist - and get tired. It’s enough for the M60 commander to twist his head to look around.
                  2. tchoni
                    tchoni 17 January 2016 18: 18 New
                    0
                    And if it's lazy - google to help ... You can and YouTube :-)
                2. cast iron
                  cast iron 16 January 2016 22: 05 New
                  0
                  And how much does the M69 tower outperform the T72? You know very well that from the sides all the towers of all the tanks of the world penetrate perfectly through the cumulative PSUs. At the same time, in a torsion angle of 30 degrees in front, the T72 tower is ORDERED more secure than the obsolete M60 homogenous. And no additional DZ especially does not correct the situation. Soviet passive combined protection was originally developed to protect against cumulative tank BP and sub-calibers WITHOUT USING dynamic protection.
                  1. tchoni
                    tchoni 19 January 2016 03: 46 New
                    0
                    1) are you sure that additional protection will not fix anything?
                    2) security is just one of the parameters. As I said above, it is foolish to erect any one in salting.
                    And the tank tower is an excuse, a whole complex consisting of armor, guns, suo, life support systems, visibility and communications. And, it seems to me, to make a decision that the M60 tower loses much to the T72 tower only on the basis that there are no pockets for multilayer armor in its frontal rocks is silly. And it is very similar to what Ukrainians do on the censor :-)
        3. goose
          goose 15 January 2016 15: 48 New
          +2
          Quote: Magic Archer
          If you can not justify

          I did not minus, but the goal of the T-72B3 modernization was not a qualitative improvement in performance, but just some kind of updating and repair of the tank, for which there was enough money. Well, sponsoring repair factories due to overpriced. Therefore, it is incorrect to compare these programs. Of the amount allocated for the modernization of one tank, only 22 million rubles were used to improve performance, which at the 2013 exchange rate is less than $ 1 million.
          Nevertheless, a new gun was delivered, which ensured a qualitative increase in characteristics, and not just the devices were updated.

          There are, of course, many mysteries, for example, for the same price it was possible to put a new engine instead of repairing the old one. Why not put a cheap navigation system? Why instead of Contact-5 they didn’t order Relic, the same mystery.
        4. Lex.
          Lex. 15 January 2016 16: 17 New
          +6
          What grandmothers such and sneakers say. What kind of money could have allocated such modernization and received, would have allocated more would put and relic
          1. GRAY
            GRAY 15 January 2016 16: 25 New
            +1
            Quote: Lex.
            would single out more would put and relic

            Or they would burn down an extra hundred tanks with "Contact" laughing
            The country is large, there are a lot of tanks, the emphasis is on quantity.
        5. The comment was deleted.
        6. 73bor
          73bor 15 January 2016 22: 32 New
          +3
          I agree with many things, but I recently had to visit the tank museum in Kubinka, the M-60 is just a huge target, it’s wrong to compare the M60 with the T-72, these are tanks of different levels, you have to compare them with the T-62!
          1. cast iron
            cast iron 16 January 2016 00: 21 New
            +1
            The trick is that having a significantly lower weight, the T62 outperforms the M60 hippo in armor protection)))
            1. Witold
              Witold 27 January 2016 21: 51 New
              -1
              This hippo clicked the T-62 into the Doomsday War in 73, like seeds.
        7. cast iron
          cast iron 16 January 2016 00: 19 New
          +1
          Less to you. The M60 tower is by no means a competitor to the tower of even the old T72. The protection is not at that level. Dimensions 2 times more. There are no missile weapons. There is no thermal imager - hi T72B3.
          1. tchoni
            tchoni 16 January 2016 06: 57 New
            -1
            Why are you so hard on the dimensions? The low profile doesn’t even prevent the T-72 from burning perfectly, often taking along the entire crew ...
            1. cast iron
              cast iron 16 January 2016 22: 01 New
              0
              Finally! I was already starting to worry! A tank expert on tower dimensions came)))) Soviet and Western scientists and engineers were apparently very dumb - they calculated the probability of defeat depending on the size of the target, and then an expert appeared and specifically crossed out all their many years of research))) I’ll tell you so . A low profile VERY MUCH EVERYTHING (MISSING) burns perfectly. the fact is reinforced concrete.
              1. tchoni
                tchoni 17 January 2016 07: 32 New
                0
                Only this "reinforced concrete" fact is confirmed by the reinforced concrete only by theoretical calculations ... And with statistics it is somehow not very friendly. Do you know why? Because the calculations were made on the basis that the main enemy of the tank is an anti-tank gun ...
                1. cast iron
                  cast iron 18 January 2016 00: 48 New
                  +1
                  YES WHAT? Do you have statistics on practical application? ))) Dimension plays a significant role BEFORE NOW. Especially in tank duels and in areas of expansion of fragments. Nobody has canceled physics, despite the introduction of the exam
      2. Magic archer
        Magic archer 15 January 2016 06: 49 New
        +3
        Compare the towers of both tanks, and decide for yourself.
        Yes, about biathlon. They don’t shoot at you anyway, and a lot depends on the crew’s training. There’s no night shooting, there’s no shooting on the move. It’s still not clear why we drive the T-72 and not the T-90, for example. The Chinese bring new cars and it would be interesting to see in comparison. But ....
        1. Aleksandr72
          Aleksandr72 15 January 2016 07: 37 New
          +5
          Why then not on the T-14 "Armata"? The Chinese, by the way, also bring far from new tanks, but modernized old ones. And I have big doubts about the "modernization" - I had the impression that all the work on the alteration of the tank consisted in the maximum lightening of the hull and turret and increasing the engine power in order to raise the dynamic performance, well, the OMS can also be upgraded - for greater firing accuracy ... In general, it turned out to be a "sports" version of the tank. We still will not learn the truth from the Chinese (if someone dares to seek it at all). My opinion is that the T-72B3 is being put up for biathlon for reasons of an advertising nature: there are still a lot of T-72 tanks in the warehouses of storage bases and with competent modernization, and even more precisely competent advertising of this very modernization (which we actually see at biathlon), these machines still retain great export potential, especially for countries that want to update their tank park (including those that operate earlier versions of the T-72), but do not have the funds to purchase completely new and modern equipment.
          In my opinion, the M60T "Sabra" is an unsuccessful example of the modernization of old equipment in relation to specific conditions - this is a degraded version of the Israeli "Magah-6". "New" Turkish "Sabra" would ideally fit the conditions of the war in Lebanon in 1982, specifically under the conditions of the Middle East. For Turkey (especially in such quantities), this machine is of little use. If only to fight with the Arabs in the Iraqi desert and semi-desert, or build another "Maginot Line" along the border with Greece and use "Sabras" as mobile armored bunkers. To you from me + for your steadfastness in defending your opinion, although I disagree with you (regarding "Sabra").
          I have the honor.
          1. Magic archer
            Magic archer 15 January 2016 07: 50 New
            +1
            I mean the old ones ?! The Chinese 96 entered service in the 1997 year! It’s not an old machine at all. In terms of soo, it clearly surpasses our tanks. Therefore, I do not agree with your opinion about Chinese tanks.
            Regarding Sabra. I compared only the original models. M 60 with the old gun, weak armor and outdated suo is clearly inferior to the new modification. And I compared Sabra with the T-72Б3. In my opinion, our tank is inferior. Already in the reservation is accurate. Too it on our stupidly done. Take ANY western tank and you won’t see this anywhere. Sorry, but I definitely didn’t see such a gap through the fist.
            Best regards hi
            1. Forest
              Forest 15 January 2016 19: 33 New
              0
              ZTZ 96 has a mixture of more and more new and old chassis, a rather outdated LMS and type of reservation. What was released in 90's does not change the fact that it is inferior to other models of 70's. Sabra is what in what, but in the reservation is clearly inferior. Firstly, the armor is homogeneous, and thin enough in the body. The native M60 tower did not differ in armor, so its additional modules brought to normal parameters. That the M829 will be a gun is far from a fact, so a battle against 72B3 with an ammunition ammunition of modern ammunition is likely to be fatal. I will try to find an old photo where the remaining scraps from M829 were removed from the Iraqi T-72M tower. The peculiarity of the modernization of the T-72B3 was to update the tank fleet at the minimum cost before launching a new vehicle. Tanks are now so expensive that updating the fleet in 2-4 thousand vehicles to a version of, for example, the T-72 Slingshot would drag on to 2020 of the year with a complete halt of work on the T-14.
              1. Vadim237
                Vadim237 15 January 2016 22: 26 New
                0
                The U.S. Army now has new ammunition, one hit and the T 72B3 tank ends with a 90 percent probability, the same with foreign ATGMs.
                1. Forest
                  Forest 16 January 2016 00: 20 New
                  +1
                  Firstly, it’s not a fact that it will break through, and secondly, I don’t know a single tank that can survive the defeat of modern ammunition.
                2. cast iron
                  cast iron 16 January 2016 00: 27 New
                  +1
                  What are you doing? Really! And the men do not even know! )))) The trick is that the new PSUs have not yet been tested on the T72B3. So you can say anything. What’s written on the fence, and behind it is firewood.
            2. 73bor
              73bor 15 January 2016 22: 38 New
              +1
              And they did not try to compare the M60 with classmates, the T-72 even surpasses the M60 without DZ in everything!
            3. cast iron
              cast iron 16 January 2016 00: 25 New
              +1
              Chinese cars are so "superior" in the T72 MSA that they do not stand out in the firing line in the tank biathlon)))))
          2. Professor
            Professor 15 January 2016 08: 05 New
            +9
            Quote: Aleksandr72
            In my opinion, the M60T "Sabra" is an unsuccessful example of the modernization of old equipment in relation to specific conditions - this is a degraded version of the Israeli "Magah-6". "New" Turkish "Sabra" would ideally fit the conditions of the war in Lebanon in 1982, specifically under the conditions of the Middle East.

            Patton showed himself on the good side. The tankers were in no hurry to part with it. In my opinion, in addition to protection, the highlight of Sabra is the Knight SLA, which, in the opinion of the same tankers, is superior to the Merkava MK.2 SLA.
            I have a girl.
            1. Bongo
              Bongo 15 January 2016 09: 08 New
              +8
              Quote: Professor
              Patton showed himself on the good side. The tankers were in no hurry to part with it. In my opinion, in addition to protection, the highlight of Sabra is the Knight SLA, which, in the opinion of the same tankers, is superior to the Merkava MK.2 SLA.
              I have a girl.

              Oleg, you in your repertoire, do not hesitate to defend your own point of view good I don’t know how others, but personally I missed you! Welcome back!
            2. twviewer
              twviewer 15 January 2016 16: 16 New
              0
              General Dynamics 120S will be more interesting, and there are no problems with free parts :)
              s120


            3. Scraptor
              Scraptor 20 January 2016 11: 29 New
              0
              ... and a girl? (+ attention, spoiler) hi
        2. Dewa1s
          Dewa1s 15 January 2016 07: 54 New
          0
          It’s still not clear why we drive the T-72 and not the T-90

          Well, maybe because one new T-90 costs like 3 deeply modernized T-72s, of which the Soviet industry riveted horseradish pieces?
          One on the way to Armat troops.
        3. Lex.
          Lex. 15 January 2016 17: 39 New
          +3
          And where do you offer thousands of t-72 children?
          And there is also t-55, t-62 unmeasured amount
          1. Forest
            Forest 15 January 2016 19: 35 New
            0
            For example, they will go to spare parts. In the Bati part, they managed to squeeze the diesels from the T-34 and IS-2, which were in storage, onto the tractor.
          2. MACCABI-TLV
            MACCABI-TLV 15 January 2016 22: 52 New
            +1
            Quote: Lex.
            And where do you offer thousands of t-72 children?

            us for a commercial with ahzarit mk3 smile
        4. cast iron
          cast iron 16 January 2016 00: 24 New
          0
          Chinese new cars in driving performance are already inferior to the old T72. You yourself are not funny? Looking at the T72B3 low-profile, much more secure tower, there is no doubt that upgrading the obsolete M60 is a waste of money. T72A in the distant 1970s already exceeded by head in all respects the M60. There can be no discussion.
        5. Maksimov
          Maksimov 13 August 2016 09: 07 New
          0
          There is room for diplomatic maneuver in this. If the tank loses in biathlon, they will say: "This is an outdated tank, the new ones are much cooler!" If the tank wins, they will say: "Even our outdated tanks outperform the Chinese, what can we say about the new ones!" And the results of the merrymaking are easy to transfer to more modern tanks or to make the modernization of the most massive T-72 for today.
      3. Lepila
        Lepila 15 January 2016 15: 22 New
        +2
        A few years ago, we removed from service the latest modified modifications of the M-60. The production of the Merkava-4 and the modification of the Merkava-2 in the infantry fighting vehicle continue in parallel with the release of the new Namer infantry fighting vehicles based on the Merkava-4.
      4. Blackgrifon
        Blackgrifon 15 January 2016 19: 12 New
        +2
        Quote: Linkor9s21
        Why is the T-72B3 so bad? at the tank biathlon is not very bad at showing itself.

        That’s in biathlon. There, the incomplete cover of the bow of the hull and turret with dynamic armor and the machine gun installation open to all winds do not play a special role, but when the question arose of what to send to protect the air base in Syria, they chose not T-72B3, but T-90A.
        1. Forest
          Forest 15 January 2016 20: 37 New
          +1
          The frontal part of the hull has a built-in remote sensing.
  2. Valery 1966
    Valery 1966 15 January 2016 07: 05 New
    -1
    Soon, post-war tanks will be enough for players to put them in a separate rank and let them fight only among themselves so that everyone else does not suffer. Yes, now it’s already possible to start such an experiment in the form of a hodgepodge, since only the advice of such tanks now has 6 models (3 types of T54, Su122-54, Is4m, T10), 4 models for Amers (M46, M47, M60, M103) and 1 Germans model (leopard 1). What prevents me from doing this, I don’t understand ...
    1. cast iron
      cast iron 16 January 2016 00: 30 New
      0
      Are you going to fight at Su122 for Rottenberg? I'd rather go to jail for desertion))) Chesslovo.
  3. The comment was deleted.
  4. Professor
    Professor 15 January 2016 07: 58 New
    +2
    Let's go in the second round? wink

    Sabra Main Battle Tank

    1. Massik
      Massik 15 January 2016 08: 19 New
      +2
      Quote: Professor
      Let's go in the second round?
      Why not, amid dancing with the Turks.
      1. castle
        castle 15 January 2016 12: 43 New
        +1
        Against the background of dancing with the Turks? Do you mean that Russia began to lift sanctions against Turkey?
  5. Massik
    Massik 15 January 2016 08: 25 New
    +2
    It is strange that there is no additional armor for the roof of the tower, even without an advanced ATGM, it can be planted from the top floor from a regular RPG.
    1. Professor
      Professor 15 January 2016 08: 29 New
      +3
      Quote: Marssik
      It is strange that there is no additional armor for the roof of the tower, even without an advanced ATGM, it can be planted from the top floor from a regular RPG.

      The client wishes and there will be additional protection on the roof. While anti-tank guns striking from above is only among the bourgeoisie.
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 20 January 2016 11: 21 New
        0
        and where did the Soviet prototype overweight go - did Israel buy everything or did it give it to America?
    2. Forest
      Forest 15 January 2016 19: 37 New
      -1
      There you need so much armor that normal people began to make KAZ for the upper hemisphere.
    3. cast iron
      cast iron 16 January 2016 00: 31 New
      +1
      What protection on the roof, Carl? 0_o
  6. vladimir1958
    vladimir1958 15 January 2016 08: 53 New
    -3
    The more powerful the engine, the faster you can drape off the battlefield. The tower pylon M 60 is designed for 105 mm rifled guns, we hope that a 120 mm smoothbore will tear off the tower.
    1. Bormanxnumx
      Bormanxnumx 15 January 2016 11: 03 New
      0
      Do you have objective data to calculate the recoil momentum of both guns?
  7. vladimir1958
    vladimir1958 15 January 2016 09: 09 New
    +3
    SW Colleagues, I respect your opinions, but I advise you to read at least “foreign military review”. Sometimes some conclusions are annoying.
    1. padded jacket
      padded jacket 15 January 2016 13: 07 New
      0
      Despite all the "lies" that the citizens of "one" country are spreading to us, the Israeli regime continues to cooperate or, in any case, fruitfully cooperated and armed Erdogan's regime and the modernization of the M-60 is just one of the episodes of their "friendship".
      And what Israel and Turkey are doing against the people of Syria and Iraq supporting terrorism in the region simply can not be described.
      1. Pimply
        Pimply 15 January 2016 22: 42 New
        0
        Quote: quilted jacket
        armed Erdogan's regime and the modernization of the M-60 is only one of the episodes of their "friendship".

        Well, Russia and Turkey did not spill water three months ago either. Everything flows, everything changes, a small proud quilted jacket
  8. Red_Hamer
    Red_Hamer 15 January 2016 13: 15 New
    +4
    Well, the topic, and then already tired of politics))
  9. andrei72
    andrei72 15 January 2016 14: 27 New
    -1
    Quote: inkass_98
    Recently, there have been so many Uriah-patriots who don’t feed bread, but let them blame someone for an unapproved way of thinking.
    I completely agree that biathlon is one thing, and a real fight is another. You can’t save on people's lives, it’s better to make fewer modernized tanks, but to make modernization worthy. Take the same Type-96 that the Chinese brought - it is all in dynamic defense, the tower is completely protected. In a real battle, despite the fact that they lost in the competition, I would prefer the Chinese, all other things being equal.

    In a REAL battle, I would also "bet" on the Chinese, since ONLY THEIR tanks are equipped with a LASER weapon that automatically triggers the irradiation of the laser rangefinder and burns out ANY enemy night optics, surveillance systems, etc., or completely blinds enemy soldiers (blinds "forever ", ie the fighter is visually impaired, without the possibility of healing). This is many times more effective than the most advanced tank guns with the most modern BOPS.
    1. Forest
      Forest 15 January 2016 19: 38 New
      0
      Is not a fact. what will work. According to the ZTZ 96 advertisement, they’ll tear everything up and even meter BOPSs are inserted into AZ ZTZ 99.
  10. Rostovchanin
    Rostovchanin 15 January 2016 14: 35 New
    +1
    zadolbali experts. One tank is good another is bad or vice versa. To find out which is good and which is bad, put them on top of each other and groan at the same time. Who will stand is that good. Both will burn - both g.o. Everything else is the work of chance and the crew.
    SW Magic Archer, I am not an engineer and exploiter of tanks, but IMHO, even if the hole between the DZ is in a fist, you need to shoot very accurately to get there and preferably point blank. Yes, this in a sense adds the probability of breaking through, but as you know the tower has the shape of a sphere and in this case it is necessary to make either a DZ cast in the shape of a sphere, or there will still be gaps.
  11. Kars
    Kars 15 January 2016 14: 56 New
    +4
    If there is a need to extend the life of M60 then why not. Apparently there is not enough money for Leopards.
    And so pretty.
  12. pin313
    pin313 15 January 2016 17: 27 New
    +1
    Something seems to me that Patton was called M47 and M48, and not M60. Or am I wrong?
    1. Professor
      Professor 15 January 2016 17: 41 New
      +1
      Quote: pin313
      Something seems to me that Patton was called M47 and M48, and not M60. Or am I wrong?

      No, they are not right. M60 is also Patton.
      M60 (Patton)
      1. Kars
        Kars 15 January 2016 17: 52 New
        +1
        Not Sabra of course, but I think the topic
      2. Lex.
        Lex. 15 January 2016 19: 44 New
        +2
        By the way, the American M-60 tower rotates using hydraulics rather than an electric motor, this is a big minus
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 17 January 2016 12: 16 New
          0
          That's right. Hydraulic fluid easily caught fire
          when breaking through, the tower found itself in a ring of fire.
          This was the main reason why the Patton (Mages) were abandoned.
      3. Lex.
        Lex. 15 January 2016 19: 44 New
        +1
        By the way, the American M-60 tower rotates using hydraulics rather than an electric motor, this is a big minus
    2. tankovod
      tankovod 15 January 2016 17: 52 New
      0
      Quote: pin313
      Something seems to me that Patton was called M47 and M48, and not M60. Or am I wrong?

      M48 were modernized and became known as M60
  13. Des10
    Des10 15 January 2016 17: 44 New
    +1
    pin313, You are right, M48 - Patton 3, and M60, although it was created on the basis of M48 - Patton (4) - was not called.