M60 vs T-62: Cold War Combatants 1956-92 (Duel) [Englisch] [Taschenbuch]

I served on the M60 in various versions (M60A1, M60A1(AOS), M60A1 RISE/Passive and M60A3 TTS) for many years and looked forward to this book. Much like NVG85, it's left me a bit disappointed.
I appreciate the attempt to bring fresh authors into the fold, but someone really needs to vet them before committing to print. Nordeen and Isby have the details "right" from a satellite's level but miss and mix many of the details of life with "my" tank. When I see all of the problems with the two books, it makes me wonder just how accurate others that I'm less familiar with are.
Here are some examples of the mixing of details that are maddening to this old tanker:
1. Page 46 - the color cutaway of the "M60A1" gun turret is a drawing of the inside of an M60A3. The details of the laser rangefinder and TTS sights are very different than the coincidence rangefinder and Passive sight suite.
2. Page 71 - Errors include items like identifying the rangefinder as one of the gunner's sights (the gunner has the M32 and the M105 telescope - the Tank commander has the rangefinder), like stating that the gunner operates the rangefinder in M60A1s, and like saying that the loader opens the blast doors to get his ammo (we only wished that we had the blast doors like the M1 series!)
3. Page 45 - If there were kits to move the ammunition out of the turret they were not deployed. The M60A1s and M60A3s I crewed on all had ammo in the turret with additional rounds stored in the hull. There were proposals for follow ons to the M60 that never got beyond paper or prototype.
4. Page 50 - The US Army reactive armor was derived from the Israeli set, but the details of size/location of the blocks is distinctly different.
5. Page 69 - Reference to the M60A1's "passive infrared" is wrong. Sights were either infrared (early M60A1s) or passive (Image intensification) not both.

There may be other errors, but these are the ones that jumped out during my first read. I'm in a position that if you asked me to recommend the book, I'd have to qualify my answer by determining what you need - if you're looking for a general reference, this adds to the relatively meager publications available; if you're looking for solid detailed information, you need to look elsewhere.

I look forward to an updated and corrected book (both NVG and/or Duel) in the future

This is an extremely useful addition to the literature of armored warfare, particularly because it will be valued by both the novice and the expert. Most important, is that it fills a desperate need, for there has been very little coverage of post WW-II tank warfare. One of the unique aspects of the comparison derives from the fact that the actual engagements were fortunately not NATO versus Warsaw Pact forces. They were instead undertaken by proxies of the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. Thus we see the results of battle in the Iran/Iraq War, and the very best coverage yet of the crucial 1973 Israeli/Arab conflict.
Written by two of the top authors in their field, David Isby and Lon Nordeen, M60 vs T-62, Cold War Combatants 1956-92 gives a unique perspective on the development of two classic tanks and comes to a surprising conclusion. The authors make an exhaustive examination of the history of the design, development, modification and employment of the two armored warriors that were used by so many nations, and which were crucial in many conflicts. They compare the performance figures, the advances in technology and relate the fascinating, hard fought battles in which they were engaged, and come to the conclusion that the M60 and T-62 were technically on a par. The difference in the results of the battles, in which the M60 fared better by far, was the training and the skill of the crews employing them. This concept is especially valuable, for the M60 and T-62 were the very best tanks deployed in Europe during the most volatile days of the Cold War, and gives some retrospective comfort on the possible outcome had that war suddenly turned hot.
While I am far from an expert on tanks, it is obvious to me that this book sets the pattern for future efforts in comparing weapon systems, particularly because of the valuable insights the authors' expertise provides. The book itself is handsome (although some of the computer images might profitably have been left out) and is well stocked with black and white as well as color pictures, all with apt, succinct captions.

As an armor officer in M60A1 and A3 companies for some 13yers, I can vouch for the incorrectness of the data on the M60 series vehicles. Get R.P. Hunnicutt's book on the Patton from a Library (It's way to expensive to buy)and see how screwed up this book is. If the other research is as sloppy as the data, this book is fire starter.
The frontal armor basis on an M60 hull is 12" (312 mm), the M60 turret is the old M48 turret with a 105 mm gun and only has a 10" armor basis in the front. The M60A1 turret has a frontal armor basis of 14" (356 mm). The other Armor thicknesses are OK but omit the slope factor on the lower hull and turret side. The gun and ammo data is all screwed up, I have no clue what his M728 APDS-T ammo is ... M393 is HEP-T, not APDS-T, which was M392A2 by 1977 anyway (page 15 error); it penetrated on the order of 12" and was designed not to ricochet off slopes, although angles of impact over 60º were probably too much for it. The M456 HEAT-T round was certainly capable of what he quotes and then a little... The accuracy numbers are most likely for the M60/M60A1 with the coincidence rangefinder although I think his hit numbers are low at 2500 and 3,000 meters. The M60A3 would absolutely out perform these numbers by a considerable margin. The M735 APFSDS-T would also exceed the penetration numbers given by a healthy margin. The T-62 Armor is essentially correct in the written description but the diagram misses the 9" turret frontal basis, vice 8" for the hull front (2/3 of all hits are in the upper half of the tank). The serious problems with the 115 mm gun are wholly missing ... Steve Zaloga does explain these in several of his books on post war soviet tanks, but in a nutshell, the lack of spin in a fin stabilized round causes serious accuracy problems to to "jump" as the projectile leaves the muzzle ... it i not predictable with out some spin and the Soviets got to discover this with the 115 mm gun. The solution was to drill three angled holes in the sabot that let small jets of propellant gas escape and spin the round up so it was accurate ... but it cost a LOT of velocity (perhaps a 1,000 FPS or more) and gave the cheap steel penetrator on their APDS (for the '73 war with Israel anyway) performance that was not better than M392 APDS when it worked, and a lot of the time, the rivets holding the fins on broke, allowing the projectile to split into fins and long rod, which then spun like a thrown stick, clanging off targets. I am sure they fixed it ... but the Israeli LTC I talked to in 1975 was not at all impressed by the T-62. Look at how much the Israelis had to fix when they captured so many they had to use them!
My recommendation is save your money. Buy Zaloga or Hunnicutt, who at least do decent research ... this booklet is junk.