http://www.chinatimes.com/realtimen...08007260-260408

「45級」彈道飛彈驅逐艦裝配的是兩具勞斯萊斯新科技節能渦輪引擎，依設計，引擎排出的熱氣可回收，作為再生動能。然而，每逢高溫引擎速度就減慢，輸出的回收動力就不足以提供引擎再發動，導致當機。

大概是偷引擎的設計圖吧，至於引擎合金材料配方，應該沒這麼簡單就能拿到。

我不認為中國有拿到機密資料,畢竟這些東西都是受嚴密保管,怎麼可能一個外人就能得到的

FBI搞釣魚要騙對方上鉤的話，就會讓對方感覺到會拿到他們想要的好東西，這個最簡單最基本的招數早已經用來騙好幾個意圖在美國犯案的恐怖份子上鉤，當然要繼續這招來抓間諜了。

這篇認為M60不適合作現代化升級,寫在最後兩段
或許這些缺點 我們海島防禦不在意 不過看看吧
http://below-the-turret-ring.blogsp...60-upgrade.html

-------------
In general however the M60 tank is not well suited for being upgraded to modern standards. It is extremely tall, resulting in a larger frontal profile and a target easier to spot and to hit. Hence in comparison with a smaller tank, more armor is required to reach a required level of protection. A further disadvantage of the M60 design is it's heavy weight resulting from the relatively thick base armor. While this might sound counter-intuitive in the first moment, the problem is related to the low amount of protection offered by steel armor compared to modern composite armor types: modern composite armor can provide more than twice as much protection against KE and more than 3 times as much protection against HEAT warheads than steel armor of the same weight - this means that instead of having a ten inch (254 milimetres) thick steel turret, a thinner 3-4 inch turret (76 - 102 mm) turret could mount an additional 6-7 inch steel weight equivalent composite armor module without exceeding the weight of the ten inch steel turret.

In case of the M60 and most tanks of the same generation, the situtation is even worse due to utilizing cast steel armor for the turret instead of using rolled steel plates welded together. Cast steel offers up to 20% less protection than rolled steel, depending on the exact composition and treatment. In case of the M60, the cast armor was supposedly very soft at about 220-240 on the Brinell scale. In 1978 the steel composition was altered, probably to provide hardness comparable to the British Chieftain or Soviet T-series tanks (260-280 BHN).Lastly, the upgrades are quite lackluster in some aspects: more modern tracks are not included, no upgrade provides the commander with an independent (thermal) optic with FCS integration, and the power-to-weight ratio is poor on all models.

主要是嫌M60比較高大,較易被發現攻擊
然後不是複合裝甲, 這點是主要被認為不適合去做現代化升級的因素.
非複合裝甲的防護力 差蠻多的
還有升級沒有提供車長一個獨立,整合未來戰鬥系統的(熱顯像)光學儀,
升級後的引擎,功率重量比差.

高大在台灣反而是優點吧
丘陵地居多的地型,砲塔有高度才有俯角
只須露出半個頭就可以開砲

沒俯角的戰車要整個車身出去才能壓砲塔
日本的74式跟10式設計理念就很適合台灣

不過10式真的太誇張,後退速度跟前進速度一樣快

將領私下看衰說，許多退役官兵身材委實不若年少時代，要「套入」軍服也許有困難，且正步難度高，非經年累月複練，根本難以將當年水準拿出來，「老兵發福矣，尚能正步否？」


http://udn.com/news/story/1/1756256
凱道踢正步 500多位中年大叔憶當年

不知是哪隻猩猩說的 ?

看是和哪款比 ... 有自動裝填的?


豹2式
乘員 4人
長度 7.69米
闊度 3.70米
高度 2.79米
重量 62.3公噸


M1
乘員 4人
（車長、砲手、裝填手、駕駛）
長度 9.78米（26呎）
闊度 3.64米（12呎）
高度 2.43米（8呎）
重量 63.0噸

M60 ==>未改款

總重 M60：46噸（50.7噸）
M60A1：52到54噸（視砲塔設計而定）
全長 M60：6.94公尺（22.79'）
寬度 M60：3.6公尺（11.92'）
全高 M60：3.2公尺（10.54'）
操作人數 4