MBT-70/Kampfpanzer-70

[Tank50us 266]

During a discussion on the M60, the topic of the MBT-70 came up, and while I admit it is a prototype tank, it's the tank that led to the M1 Abrams, and Leopard 2 series of tanks (And please, no comparisons between those two in this thread.)

 

In real life, the project started as a join venture between the US and West Germany to develop a common tank that both armies could use. The tank itself was designed in response to the threat posed by the new T-62 series of tanks, and possibly even the T-64 (I don't know if NATO knew that tank existed yet). The project itself called for the tank to be a low-profile design, with the ability to adjust the suspension from inside the tank (giving a unique 'peekaboom' attack style), and for the armament of either a 120mm Smoothbore gun, or a 152mm gun-launcher system.

 

That's where the project got split. The US went with the 152mm XM150E5 Gun-launcher, which was similar to the M81E1 mounted on the M551 Sheridan (albeit, about double the length), could fire HE, APFSDS, HEAT, and the Ever so reliable (/sarcasm) MGM-51 Shillelagh Anti-tank missile (more on this later).

 

The German version however used a 120mm Smoothbore gun (no, not the L55/M256 cannon, this was a gun unique to this vehicle), which could fire HE, HEAT, or APFSDS rounds.

 

Both versions also mounted a 20mm Hispano cannon which could be retracted into the turret for protection, and was operated by the commander. This gun was likely to be used as a way to deal with light armor, or low-flying aircraft and helicopters.

 

Regardless of which version you're looking at, the tank was fast. Easily capable of 69kph on road, and thanks to the suspension, probably able to do 2/3 of that on rough ground.

 

Armor was a layored system of two layers of RHS, sandwiching a 'pocket'. This unique bit of spaced armoring offered increased protection against HEAT rounds, as well as APDS rounds fired from atleast 800m away. (Layout below)

 

 

In the end though, many of the unique features of this tank were just far to ahead of their time. The Suspension made it mechanically complex, and the odd placement of the crew made driving the thing hard on the drivers. But, the thing that would ultimately kill the project was its cost. By the end of the program, it had cost 3 times the projected cost, and the respective governments shifted the funds into developing other tanks (the M1 and Leopard 2), after just 14 examples were built between 1965 and 1970.

 

Gameplay:

 

Both tanks would obviously be Rank V vehicles, and likely hang out there with a VERY high Battle Rating (no less then atleast 8.5) as they are fairly strong frontally, and pack one hell of an offensive punch.

 

The big question is the MGM-51 ATGM, obviously a guided missile would make the thing over powered pretty easily (considering only the US Version used it), so obviously that would either have to be removed entirely, or, modified to fit the game. One way to do the latter would be make it an unguided rocket that fires in a straight line, has to accelerate out (making it poor against fast moving targets), but is otherwise just a special kind of HEAT round that has the ability to fire with no arc. This is both a gift, and a curse mind you. As it would allow the tank to engage targets that are very far away, but because of the fact it's a rocket and not a bullet, the targets would have to be stationary, and you have to have a direct line of sight where other rounds could still hit targets that are behind cover.

 

The 20mm secondary cannon would make this tank ideal to mix in with other tanks as it gives them some slight AA protection from incoming fighters and light bombers. However, it is highly exposed, and even machine gun fire can take the autocannon out of action.

 

The armor, despite being frontally decent, is actually pretty weak, and can't stand up to much. Just about anything in the game currently could take one of these out with a frontal shot provided they have the penetration (which going off of the data cards, most do). Side shots into this thing will pretty much kill it no problem as the three man crew is actually packed in tight.

 

Although equipped with an autoloader, this tank is by no means an AMX13. The Autoloader in these things were actually slower then a human loader, and the machinery took up a good portion of the turret. So, again, side shots could easily knock the gun out action, or kill the very small crew.

 

Photos:

 

What do you guys think?

 

 

[Smin1080p_WT 60,444]

Open for discussion :salute: 

 

However something like this seems like its obviously stretching the time frame way out, could you provide some more info please? 

[_TomokoAnabuki 8,995]

well,

Smoothbore gun,

Autoloaders

Ability of ATGMS

build in the 70's and never moved past prototype stage.

Nope, bad idea, considering the current Balancing issues

[darklegacy245 525]

This would just open the door to the Chieftain which is something I would rather not have to deal with and it along with the Chieftain would destroy any remaining balance that's currently in the game which if you haven't noticed there isn't much balance left to begin with. The project also took place between 1965-1971 German left to work on the Leopard 2 in 1969 and the US ended the project in 1971 and started working on the M1 Abrams in 1972 and yes the Leopard 2 and M1 Abrams were both VERY heavily influenced by the MBT-70/ KPz 70. 

Edited January 8, 2015 by darklegacy245

[Comett 4,923]

Aren't we getting a bit too ahead of ourselves?

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

However something like this seems like its obviously stretching the time frame way out, could you provide some more info please? 

 

Well... It was an idea from '63. It was in testing by/during '65. It continued testing into the very early 70's.

 

 

well,

Smoothbore gun,

Autoloaders

Ability of ATGMS

build in the 70's and never moved past prototype stage.

Nope, bad idea, considering the current Balancing issues

 

Tomoko, just some food for the thought here:

 

They nerfed the M103's reload rate for balance reasons. There's nothing saying they wouldn't do the same with the MBT-70. 

 

anti-tank missiles aren't going to be admitted to the game. The obvious solution is to restrict it to conventional munitions, or if they really wanted to push it, they could do a LoS missile (Unguided.).

 

 

It was built in 1964-1965.

 

As for balance, considering BOTH versions would fight for the same side, yes. It woudl stack the odds fairly heavily against russia.

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

This would just open the door to the Chieftain which is something I would rather not have to deal with and it along with the Chieftain would destroy any remaining balance that's currently in the game which if you haven't noticed there isn't much balance left to begin with. 

 

Apologies for the doublepost here: 

 

Info on when it was tested? (like, was testing preformed at or before '65?)

[darklegacy245 525]

Apologies for the doublepost here: 

 

Info on when it was tested? (like, was testing preformed at or before '65?)

Prototypes for the Chieftain were created in 1959 and it entered service in 1966.

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

Well, even if it was only Leopard Prototype, they could still push a Chieftain proto as well.

 

 

The developers just opened a massive jar of worms by admitting the Leopard 1.

[darklegacy245 525]

Well, even if it was only Leopard Prototype, they could still push a Chieftain proto as well.

 

 

The developers just opened a massive jar of worms by admitting the Leopard 1.

It's armor isn't that thick but with sloping it would be a tough nut to crack with current in game mechanics glacis 120mm at 72^o  and turret is 195mm at 60^o. It was very advanced for its time and had the most effective armor in the world when it entered service in 1966.

[Tank50us 266]

Well, Russia is likely to see a number of their prototype tanks entering the game at some point. And boy did they have some low-profile designs to play with. So adding this thing wouldn't be much of a stretch.

 

Also, as I said in the initial post, the MGM-51 would have to be a LoS Rocket in order to be implemented. Which itself wouldn't be too big an issue, especially if they add the SturmTiger into the game (since that thing used a REALLY BIG rocket launcher...), the downside however is that because it's strictly a LoS weapon, if you can't see the target, you can't hit him. So it kinda balances itself.

[Banelord300 11,943]

Id say no as we are really far from WW2 now, and this thing was more advanced than the M1 Abrams (early versions) and it dosent help that it will be the most manuvarble high tier.

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

Id say no as we are really far from WW2 now, and this thing was more advanced than the M1 Abrams (early versions) and it dosent help that it will be the most manuvarble high tier.

 

 

Well, if they lock it into the low-profile mode... it's not going to be very mobile at all. 

 

So basically lock it into ~10" off the ground and the mobility will be sorted out. The way the machine got its crazy mobility was that the suspension could go two feet up and down, and it had a pretty powerful engine.

 

----------------

 

But the match making would be a bit of an issue.

 

On one side you're going to have:

MBT-70

M103

M60

M48

 

Leopard Proto

Leopard 1

The modern stug vehicle thing (looks just like the stug...?)

KPz 70

 

Chieftain

Centurion

 

Type 61

Type 74

 

AMX-30

 

All of the above versus:

T10M

perhaps Obj 286

T-55

T-62

Maybe T-64

 

(And I probably missed a few... but still, i think i've made my point.)

[Galen503 548]

If they want to create a tier VI and move into a more modern era I am all for it. There is no reason why they can't redefine what they want their game to be. There really is no other alternative for playing MBTs and if they wanted to create new tiers and head into the 70s and 80s I think they would open an entirely new market and I would gladly play this game to Tier 10 being M1A2s and T90s. I just don't see this tank fitting in at TV or the current vision for the game. But as I said I am completely open for them to change their vision and take ground forces all the way to the modern era. I am not saying I know how or even that it is a good idea but I would love to see a company try and I think they would have the entire market for that style of game for themselves.

 

I might support it if they add higher tiers. Though hypothetically I would still prefer vehicles that saw service to prototypes first. 

Edited January 8, 2015 by galen503

[Tank50us 266]

Well, if they lock it into the low-profile mode... it's not going to be very mobile at all. 

 

So basically lock it into ~10" off the ground and the mobility will be sorted out. The way the machine got its crazy mobility was that the suspension could go two feet up and down, and it had a pretty powerful engine.

 

----------------

 

But the match making would be a bit of an issue.

 

On one side you're going to have:

MBT-70

M103

M60

M48

 

Leopard Proto

Leopard 1

The modern stug vehicle thing (looks just like the stug...?)

KPz 70

 

Chieftain

Centurion

 

Type 61

Type 74

 

AMX-30

 

All of the above versus:

T10M

perhaps Obj 286

T-55

T-62

Maybe T-64

 

(And I probably missed a few... but still, i think i've made my point.)

 

Yeah ya missed quite a few actually :Ps

 

You've got the AMX-13 with the 90mm gun, the Bat.Chat (if added), AMX-50 series (if added) for the French, the US might get the M50 and M51 (IDF upgraded Shermans that could fight T-55s to a stand still), The E-50, E-75, E-100 (if added), and the possibly dozens of Soviet designs that never quite made it to service for political reasons.

[SuperTechmarine 1,575]

well,

Smoothbore gun,

Autoloaders

Ability of ATGMS

build in the 70's and never moved past prototype stage.

Nope, bad idea, considering the current Balancing issues

 

^This

 

Yeah ya missed quite a few actually :Ps

 

You've got the AMX-13 with the 90mm gun, the Bat.Chat (if added), AMX-50 series (if added) for the French, the US might get the M50 and M51 (IDF upgraded Shermans that could fight T-55s to a stand still), The E-50, E-75, E-100 (if added), and the possibly dozens of Soviet designs that never quite made it to service for political reasons.

 

No.

Edited January 9, 2015 by SuperTechmarine

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

^This

 

Well... It was an idea from '63. It was in testing by/during '65. It continued testing into the very early 70's.

 

They nerfed the M103's reload rate for balance reasons. There's nothing saying they wouldn't do the same with the MBT-70. 

 

anti-tank missiles aren't going to be admitted to the game. The obvious solution is to restrict it to conventional munitions, or if they really wanted to push it, they could do a LoS missile (Unguided.).

 

As for balance, considering BOTH versions would fight for the same side, yes. It would stack the odds fairly heavily against russia.

 

This^

[Grand_Moff_Tano 3,460]

Well, if they lock it into the low-profile mode... it's not going to be very mobile at all. 

 

So basically lock it into ~10" off the ground and the mobility will be sorted out. The way the machine got its crazy mobility was that the suspension could go two feet up and down, and it had a pretty powerful engine.

 

----------------

 

But the match making would be a bit of an issue.

 

On one side you're going to have:

MBT-70

M103

M60

M48

 

Leopard Proto

Leopard 1

The modern stug vehicle thing (looks just like the stug...?)

KPz 70

 

Chieftain

Centurion

 

Type 61

Type 74

 

AMX-30

 

All of the above versus:

T10M

perhaps Obj 286

T-55

T-62

Maybe T-64

 

(And I probably missed a few... but still, i think i've made my point.)

T-62 with the 115mm Smoothbore gun would sort out the MBT-70 and Kpz 70 easily, but then we'd need to open up beyond Tier 5 which I hope the game does.

Edited January 9, 2015 by PikachuTrainer

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

T-62 with the 115mm Smoothbore gun would sort out the MBT-70 and Kpz 70 easily, but then we'd need to open up beyond Tier 5 which I hope the game does.

 

Well with my somewhat limited knowledge, basically the only true competitors to the NATO tanks would be the T-62.. The T-10M was slow compared to the MBT-70 or the Leopard 1/Kpz. 70... Even the T-62 is slower than the Leopard/MBT tanks by about 10 mph or 16 kph. With the suspension on the MBT tanks, I'll bet that it could also have a much faster rough terrain speed too... 

 

 

I don't know... It just seems to me, that no matter what the timeline is, someone's going to end up being on top. It seems that one country will produce a tank, another country will produce a tank to counter the first tank, and so on and so forth. So no matter when they cut the timeline, you're going to end up with tanks that aren't balanced.

[Grand_Moff_Tano 3,460]

Well with my somewhat limited knowledge, basically the only true competitors to the NATO tanks would be the T-62.. The T-10M was slow compared to the MBT-70 or the Leopard 1/Kpz. 70... Even the T-62 is slower than the Leopard/MBT tanks by about 10 mph or 16 kph. With the suspension on the MBT tanks, I'll bet that it could also have a much faster rough terrain speed too... 

 

 

I don't know... It just seems to me, that no matter what the timeline is, someone's going to end up being on top. It seems that one country will produce a tank, another country will produce a tank to counter the first tank, and so on and so forth. So no matter when they cut the timeline, you're going to end up with tanks that aren't balanced.

Certainly would make the game more interesting and I think you meant the T-64 as being the competitor to NATO.

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

Certainly would make the game more interesting and I think you meant the T-64 as being the competitor to NATO.

 

I'm not into tank technicalities. I like tanks that easily one-shot others. 

 

Proud supporter of T92 :)) (240mm of pure derp)

[Grand_Moff_Tano 3,460]

I'm not into tank technicalities. I like tanks that easily one-shot others. 

 

Proud supporter of T92 :)) (240mm of pure derp)

I'm a proud support for the FV4005 Stage I (autoloading 183mm King of Derps)

Edited January 9, 2015 by PikachuTrainer

[NachtJagerX 10,074]

I don't even know anymore.

[Kempston 342]

Any chance of a poll on this topic?

[Abgeschossene 10,084]

While we're at it, add in the T-64 which cannot be countered.

 

No.

 

Also, LOL at people saying T-62...

 

This thing wipes the floor with the T-62 FFS!

 

If you suggest this, then you'll NEED to suggest 2 other things:

 

Either the super OP T-64A, yes, T-64A, the one in my signature, not T-64, OR the also super OP, but less OP than T-64A, T-72.