You may have been a tanker but you sure did not learn to read. I was comparing the M60 to the M1 Abrams. Perhaps you were the "tanker" in our unit that never got dirty and came up on sick call every time we went to the field. Your claim is the BS here.
I was in M48A5s & M60A1s in the 1970’s. Not bone crushing if you didn’t drive stupid. The driver, gunner, & TC could always see what was coming & the loader rode chest high in the loader’s hatch so if column speed was around 22 mph, not so bad. Not a bad memory of those vehicles but I never got to ride in an Abrams which I hear has a radically different suspension.
Good to hear about the M60A3 upgrade. Broke my heart in the 1980’s when they started dumping M60’s in the ocean to make reefs (deconned first). What a waste if they need those hulls/turrets now.
Then it’s not my knowledge that’s the problem, it’s your inability to write clearly.
I got to ride on and occasionally in M60A3’s (1/72d AR), though much more often in M113A2’s, and recently in M1A1 and M1A2SEP Abrams (and Bradley, Stryker, and pretty much everything else in development). The M60 is a FAR cry from the Abrams, but not so much different from the M113 from my recollection. In either case, if you are in rough terrain and drive very fast you will get bounced around A LOT. Overall though, I wouldn’t call it bone jarring, and no worse than other tracks from that era. I don’t see how you can do the engine/main gun upgrade with option for SLAT armor without suspension upgrade; you are adding a lot of weight that would exceed original design limits I’m sure.