MBT-70/Kampfpanzer-70

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

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

 

I feel like we're dragging this off-topic....

 

I think the MBT-70/KPz.70 should be added, but with some obvious nerfs.... That way they end up being balanced, even though one was designed to be better than the other.

[Abgeschossene 10,084]

Also, last thing:

 

The ATGMs on the MBT 70? Didn't work.

 

Gas turbine of the German MBT 70? Didn't work. [didn't stop Americans to make their M1 with a gas turbine though]

 

Good luck modelling it without those.

 

Oh, and the hispano 20mm? It was a pain in the *** to work with.

[Grand_Moff_Tano 3,460]

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.

T-64A wouldn't be OP if you had a 120mm Smoothbore L/44 ripping it a new one

[Abgeschossene 10,084]

T-64A wouldn't be OP if you had a 120mm Smoothbore L/44 ripping it a new one

 

Look at when the T-64A was produced and when the 120mm L/44 was produced.

 

1968 vs 1979.

 

Yeah...

Edited January 9, 2015 by Abgeschossene

[Grand_Moff_Tano 3,460]

Look at when the T-64A was produced and when the 120mm L/44 was produced.

A gun is one thing, a shell is another so look at when the 120mm L/44 shell types were produced.

[Abgeschossene 10,084]

A gun is one thing, a shell is another so look at when the 120mm L/44 shell types were produced.

 

You have the shell, but you don't have the gun.

 

Good, what now? You'll throw the shell with your hand?

[Grand_Moff_Tano 3,460]

You have the shell, but you don't have the gun.

 

Good, what now? You'll throw the shell with your hand?

No, use the gun, it was first used on the Kpz-70 and it wasn't used on any serviced tank until 1979.

 

Oh and yes it might be a bit ahead of the cut off date.

Edited January 9, 2015 by PikachuTrainer

[Abgeschossene 10,084]

No, use the gun, it was first used on the MBT-70 and it wasn't used on any serviced tank until 1979.

 

MBT-70 didn't use the L44 did it...?

 

Fine, you have the gun. What about the shells? Were the shells equal to the 1979 shells?

[Grand_Moff_Tano 3,460]

MBT-70 didn't use the L44 did it...?

 

Fine, you have the gun. What about the shells? Were the shells equal to the 1979 shells?

Look at the edit, I corrected it long before you posted this.

[Spitfire_ 7,306]

Sorry guys, but the Chieften is the one lacking if we go into a T-64A, MBT and Chieften match up.

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

Also, last thing:

 

The ATGMs on the MBT 70? Didn't work.

 

Gas turbine of the German MBT 70? Didn't work. [didn't stop Americans to make their M1 with a gas turbine though]

 

Good luck modelling it without those.

 

Oh, and the hispano 20mm? It was a pain in the *** to work with.

 

The ATGM's wont be modeled anyhow. Why are you getting hung up on them? The most they're going to be modelled as is like a tiny tim rocket in some 152mm version that's unguided....

 

Also, I believed both had conventional piston engines at one point or another, they also both had gas turbines... And the gasoline engines both produced about 1,500 HP. (What the HP was at the tracks, I don't know.)

 

 

 

Also, just because something was a pain in the bumhole to use, does not mean it wont be added to the game. 

Edited January 9, 2015 by BlitzkriegWulf

[SuperTechmarine 1,575]

MBT-70 didn't use the L44 did it...?

 

Fine, you have the gun. What about the shells? Were the shells equal to the 1979 shells?

 

You're taking Pikachu too seriously. He'll only drive you mad. His strategy is to repeat his argument ad nauseam until you get tired of it. So I wouldn't waste my time with him.

 

 

The ATGM's wont be modeled anyhow. Why are you getting hung up on them? The most they're going to be modelled as is like a tiny tim rocket in some 152mm version that's unguided....

 

Also, I believed both had conventional piston engines at one point or another, they also both had gas turbines... And the gasoline engines both produced about 1,500 HP. (What the HP was at the tracks, I don't know.)

 

 

 

Also, just because something was a pain in the bumhole to use, does not mean it wont be added to the game. 

 

Here's the truth. The MBT-70 will be completely OP. Put it in the game? Sure, let's add the T-64 and and the T-72 while we're at it, heck add the T-80 too, it's a 1967 design, after all, the MBT-70 is 'only' a 1969 tank (the year it reached its final form), let's push everything in with the MBT pushing the timeline, Leopard 2, why not. Chieftain? Sure. Put that in. Do you see where this is going? Even the Keiler has a 120mm L/44 that breaks the game, it's still used today on the M1A2 Abrams and slaughters T-72s like sheep.

 

Plus that you don't actually need a MBT-70 to fight T-62's with smoothbores. The sky isn't falling, Wargaming has forced a smoothborophobia in you. The 115mm isn't that extreme, it's only equal to the 105mm L7 the M60A1, the Centurion and Leopard 1A1 will have. You can fight a T-62 with just those.

Edited January 9, 2015 by SuperTechmarine

[Grand_Moff_Tano 3,460]

You're taking Pikachu too seriously. He'll only drive you mad. His strategy is to repeat his argument ad nauseam until you get tired of it. So I wouldn't waste my time with him.

That;s your strategy actually, or can you not get over the fact I beat your argument in the last thread about T29?

 

Anyways a pic of MBT-70:

[Grand_Moff_Tano 3,460]

KPz 70 showing off the Hydraulic Suspension - It was never actually fitted with a Smoothbore as they were still in design and development at the time:

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

Here's the truth. The MBT-70 will be completely OP. Put it in the game? Sure, let's add the T-64 and and the T-72 while we're at it, heck add the T-80 too, it's a 1967 design, after all, the MBT-70 is 'only' a 1969 tank (the year it reached its final form), let's push everything in with the MBT pushing the timeline, Leopard 2, why not. Chieftain? Sure. Put that in. Do you see where this is going? 

 

Plus that you don't actually need a MBT-70 to fight T-62's with smoothbores. The sky isn't falling, Wargaming has forced a smoothborophobia in you. The 115mm isn't that extreme, it's only equal to the 105mm L7 the M60A1, the Centurion and Leopard 1A1 will have. You can fight a T-62 with just those.

 

You really haven't read many of my comments have you...?

 

Seems like the main concerns are the ATGM's, the autoloader, and perhaps the Gas turbine engines. Here's the obvious answer to these three problems:

ATGM's can easily be A) Not added or B) Restricted to a LoS missile that fires on a straight trajectory, but is unguided. There will be no guided munitions in war thunder, as far as I've been told, so the "ZOMG END OF WORLD ATGM's" dont exist, and won't exist.

 

The autoloader: From what I've heard, it's not capable of loading a shell every half a second. Not sure what the exact figure is, but a shell every 15s I think would be fair. It might even be one shell every 20s. Again, haven't seen a figure for the autoloader. But judging by the fact the M103 could pump a shell out every 12 seconds, and in-game it has a 26.5 s reload, i'm not convinced that they would give the MBT-70 or KPz. 70 their historic rates of fire.

 

Gas turbine engines: I believe both the MBT-70 and KPz. 70 had conventional engines that both produced roughly 1,500 HP. The MBT-70 was at one point powered by a Continental AVCR air-cooled V-12, and the KPz. 70 by a MTU Ka-500, producing 1,470 and 1,500 HP (respectively).

 

What else makes it OP? The mobility? To be honest it isn't much faster than the Leopard 1, although I suppose something should be said for the hydro suspension. The gun on the MBT-70 I don't think is that OP; I don't know much, but it seems once the RO L7 is added and with the M58 already being in-game.. It can't be that bad. 

 

 

P.S. I'm not sure why you think i'm a WG Fanboy. I havent played world of failures for at least a year, and i've been here for the last two years (And a little more).

 

 

Edit: And the MTU engine could technically be reduced all the way down to 1,100 HP instead of 1,500. It was designed as a multi-fuel engine, but when running on gasoline, it produced much less power.

Edited January 9, 2015 by BlitzkriegWulf

[SuperTechmarine 1,575]

Seems like the main concerns are the ATGM's, the autoloader, and perhaps the Gas turbine engines. Here's the obvious answer to these three problems:

ATGM's can easily be A) Not added or B) Restricted to a LoS missile that fires on a straight trajectory, but is unguided. There will be no guided munitions in war thunder, as far as I've been told, so the "ZOMG END OF WORLD ATGM's" dont exist, and won't exist.

I didn't use the ATGM as an argument against it.

 

What else makes it OP? The mobility? To be honest it isn't much faster than the Leopard 1,

And has a shitton more armor protection. It's immune to HEAT shells for one.

although I suppose something should be said for the hydro suspension. The gun on the MBT-70 I don't think is that OP; I don't know much,

The 152mm has no test data on it, even Hunnicutt come's up nil. The Sabot has a muzzle velocity of 1470m/s though, so it should be good enough. I do know for sure though that the 120mm L/44 rips to shreds everything in the game, even if the Maus is added, its impressive ~320mm stand no chance against it. Heck, it's still used today with excellent results.

but it seems once the RO L7 is added and with the M58 already being in-game.. It can't be that bad. 

I'll see for myself when the RO L7 is added before saying anything.

 

 

P.S. I'm not sure why you think i'm a WG Fanboy. I havent played world of failures for at least a year, and i've been here for the last two years (And a little more).

I was making a subtle reference to Pikachu's apocalypse-like fear of smoothbores.

 

In the end, if the MBT-70 and Kpz-70 make it in the game, have them fight T-80s and T-90s alongside the M1 Abrams, Leopard 2, Challenger and Leclerc, because at this juncture in time, it beats the shit out of every tank in the game, no exceptions.

[Abgeschossene 10,084]

Problem of adding protos in WT is that they end up better than production stuff due to their issues not modeled.

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

In the end, if the MBT-70 and Kpz-70 make it in the game, have them fight T-80s and T-90s alongside the M1 Abrams, Leopard 2, Challenger and Leclerc, because at this juncture in time, it beats the **** out of every tank in the game, no exceptions.

 

It's not like it's some unbeatable monster... I'm not sure if you realize this... I want the tank because i'd like to drive one... they look cool. I'm not here to wipe the floor and make people cry.  Yes, they need to be balanced appropriately, but not artificially nerfed too hard.

 

Tune both engines to 1,100 HP (So it's closer to ~20 hp/ton instead of 30) (Historic for the KPz. 70).

 

Give ROF of about 4/minute with perfect(gold trained) crews, perhaps ~2-2.5 a minute with stock. (Same rate of fire as M103)

 

 

 

Also, it was vulnerable to APDS rounds at anything much less than 1km. Most tanks have APDS rounds by extremely high Tier V.... 

 

 

Edit: Didn't even see you wrote all inside my comment.... There's a reason why I hate when people do that.

 

What the hell makes you think the Maus is going to fight something from twenty years later? You might as well say the Maus is better than the T-26? Do you think they would fight one another?

Edited January 9, 2015 by BlitzkriegWulf

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

Problem of adding protos in WT is that they end up better than production stuff due to their issues not modeled.

 

So... are you trying to say production tanks didn't have their drawbacks?

 

Care to elaborate on the final drives of some particular german tanks?

[SuperTechmarine 1,575]

It's not like it's some unbeatable monster... I'm not sure if you realize this... I want the tank because i'd like to drive one... they look cool. I'm not here to wipe the floor and make people cry.  Yes, they need to be balanced appropriately, but not artificially nerfed too hard.

 

Tune both engines to 1,100 HP (So it's closer to ~20 hp/ton instead of 30) (Historic for the KPz. 70).

 

Give ROF of about 4/minute with perfect(gold trained) crews, perhaps ~2-2.5 a minute with stock. (Same rate of fire as M103)

 

 

 

Also, it was vulnerable to APDS rounds at anything much less than 1km. Most tanks have APDS rounds by extremely high Tier V.... 

 

War Thunder is about recreating historical vehicles. You can either have the real MBT-70, or you can have a tank, that looks like a MBT-70, but isn't. What you're suggesting is the latter.

 

I want the MBT-70 to be itself, the real one. With real performance, not nerfed for the sake of balance. Balance is done by matching it with equal vehicles, the T-64 and T-72, the T-80 and the T-90 are the equals. It should be fighting them. WHEN they come to the game, if they do. Unless they make it in the game, no MBT-70 or Kpz-70. You shouldn't, and mustn't, artificially nerf it. The engine should stay at 1500HP, the HP per Ton ratio should be 30HP/Ton. It should have historical armor, it should have historical penetration. It should be a recreation of the real deal. And it should fight its equals, no compromise.

Hunnicutt mentions a 4 round per minute with manual, it's obviously going to be much, much higher with the auto-loader, 6 or 8 are possible. What tank can match this? The late-war Soviet tanks. Can the T-62 handle it? No it cannot. Thus it should not be in the game until there's a need for it and a tank that can match it.

Edited January 9, 2015 by SuperTechmarine

[Borotovas 4,500]

Yes.

[Grand_Moff_Tano 3,460]

War Thunder is about recreating historical vehicles. You can either have the real MBT-70, or you can have a tank, that looks like a MBT-70, but isn't. What you're suggesting is the latter.

Say that to the M103, recreating historical vehicles? Well, it's reload isn't historical.

 

I want the MBT-70 to be itself, the real one. With real performance, not nerfed for the sake of balance. Balance is done by matching it with equal vehicles, the T-64 and T-72, the T-80 and the T-90 are the equals. It should be fighting them. WHEN they come to the game, if they do. Unless they make it in the game, no MBT-70 or Kpz-70. You shouldn't, and mustn't, artificially nerf it. The engine should stay at 1500HP, the HP per Ton ratio should be 30HP/Ton. It should have historical armor, it should have historical penetration. It should be a recreation of the real deal. And it should fight its equals, no compromise.

Hunnicutt mentions a 4 round per minute with manual, it's obviously going to be much, much higher with the auto-loader, 6 or 8 are possible. What tank can match this? The late-war Soviet tanks. Can the T-62 handle it? No it cannot. Thus it should not be in the game until there's a need for it and a tank that can match it.

Explain how those 4 vehicles are equal to the MBT-70, because last I checked, the 72, 80 and 90 entered service in 1973, 1976 and 1993, and 64 would yes be the equal but the other 3 are completely ahead of the MBT-70.

 

Also the 105mm L7 was capable of 10 rounds per minute and could be loaded with APDS which would be enough to pen the vehicle.

Edited January 9, 2015 by PikachuTrainer

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

War Thunder is about recreating historical vehicles. You can either have the real MBT-70, or you can have a tank, that looks like a MBT-70, but isn't. What you're suggesting is the latter.

 

I want the MBT-70 to be itself, the real one. With real performance, not nerfed for the sake of balance. Balance is done by matching it with equal vehicles, the T-64 and T-72, the T-80 and the T-90 are the equals. It should be fighting them. WHEN they come to the game, if they do. Unless they make it in the game, no MBT-70 or Kpz-70. You shouldn't, and mustn't, artificially nerf it. The engine should stay at 1500HP, the HP per Ton ratio should be 30HP/Ton. It should have historical armor, it should have historical penetration. It should be a recreation of the real deal. And it should fight its equals, no compromise.

Hunnicutt mentions a 4 round per minute with manual, it's obviously going to be much, much higher with the auto-loader, 6 or 8 are possible. What tank can match this? The late-war Soviet tanks. Can the T-62 handle it? No it cannot. Thus it should not be in the game until there's a need for it.

 

The KPz. 70 is virtually exactly what I described. The multifuel engine was good for only 1,100 HP (In comparison to 1,500) when running on gasoline. That's historic, it is a fact, it is realistic. The autoloader was also slower than humans, from what i've heard. That means the rate of fire is likely no faster than 4 rounds per minute.

The MBT-70 on the other hand, is going to have to have 1,470 HP. It was a gasoline engine, and you can't run those on diesel. 

 

The problem with the above being, someone's going to cry bias when the German one has 370 HP less...

 

And artificially nerf? Mate, look at the M103. The reload is more than TWICE as long as it historically was. 

[KB_TheDireWolf 700]

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.)

Obj 286?

[Spitfire_ 7,306]

Obj 286?

A T-10 chassis with a long barreled 152mm AT gun.