Jump to content

MBT-70/Kampfpanzer-70


Tank50us
 Share

Well... Yeah... but I don't know very many people who load HEAT as their very first round unless the AP is a sad excuse for a tank round (Like the short 75 on low tier germans..)

 

Most people I know just load up the standard AP, or the APCR/APDS. 

 

ATGMs are really just HEAT shells with rockets at the end. If the Soviets get ATGMs, the MBT-70 will have some defense against them.

 

 

EDIT: Hurray! 1000th post.

Edited by SuperTechmarine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ATGMs are really just HEAT shells with rockets at the end. If the Soviets get ATGMs, the MBT-70 will have some defense against them.

 

 

EDIT: Hurray! 1000th post.

 

Anti Tank Guided Missiles aren't going to be in the game for the same reason that Air to Air missiles won't, so i'm not really sure how viable that particular complaint is. 

 

And it's not like i'm just making this up as of a few seconds ago- this has been their firm belief (No guided munitions) for he past two years, or however long I've been here. No matter how accurate they'd like to be, they will not  have ATGM's.  They havent included the guided bombs, guided/heat-seeking missiles, and I would be shocked if they all of a sudden decided ATGM's were a great idea.

 

 

& Grats on 1K

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anti Tank Guided Missiles aren't going to be in the game for the same reason that Air to Air missiles won't, so i'm not really sure how viable that particular complaint is. 

 

And it's not like i'm just making this up as of a few seconds ago- this has been their firm belief (No guided munitions) for he past two years, or however long I've been here. No matter how accurate they'd like to be, they will not  have ATGM's.  They havent included the guided bombs, guided/heat-seeking missiles, and I would be shocked if they all of a sudden decided ATGM's were a great idea.

 

 

& Grats on 1K

 

Just a consideration. Gotta look on the bright side of life :D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you found my source... I'm surprised you didn't bother to bring up that it claimed trials were only in 1968....

 

I don't really speak German, so I looked in the stat card, saw Antberung (?), next to it was Daimler-Benz, MTU Ka-500 and I followed from there. Didn't bother to check dates.

 

 

As far as I know, the trials were all the way from 1968 to 1970 when Congress canceled the project, according to Hunnicutt. I'll have to recheck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'd like to see this tank because it's a great piece of tech and a nice example of German and American cooperation....that failed, but still, nice to have, for both countries, so they can fight each other when Germany fight on the Russian site.

And since the project started in the mid 60's and it seems like this will become the new ground forces deadline. I'm ok with it.  I don't think it would be to OP compared to some other stuff, that's going to be in the game.

Edited by Asgar1205
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'd like to see this tank because it's a great piece of tech and a nice example of German and American cooperation....that failed, but still, nice to have, for both countries, so they can fight each other when Germany fight on the Russian site.

And since the project started in the mid 60's and it seems like this will become the new ground forces deadline. I'm ok with it.  I don't think it would be to OP compared to some other stuff, that's going to be in the game.

 

One of the primary reasons it failed was the differences in beliefs between the two countries at what an MBT should be capable of. Generally projects work a bit better when everybody agrees on what needs to be done..

 

 

Technically speaking (If you want to get into all of the technicalities of it...) the idea was born in 1963, wooden mockups existed 1964, the drivetrain and 14 hulls were built 1965-1966, including mild steel hulls, etc. Testing of the drivetrain happened in 1966, and by 1968, full trials began.

 

 

So, technically out of the timeline for the full & Complete vehicle, the question is that, does a hull constitute the full vehicle...?

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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?

 

In game?

 

Panther doesn't have any issue of the final drives ingame, and if you educate yourself, you'll notice the issue was fixed in the JP and the Ausf. G.

 

Yes, they had, no they don't ingame.

 

I am speaking ingame.

 

 

You're right. You can find the same tank at a fair BR in Tier 3. It's known as the SU-152...

 

Fun fact: ISU and SU 152's were produced within months of one another, yet one is getting screwed by the MM.

 

Incorrect.

 

The ISU 152 was produced later because there weren't enough 152mm guns. Hence ISU 122.

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Panther doesn't have any issue of the final drives ingame, and if you educate yourself...

 

 

 

Incorrect.

 

The ISU 152 was produced later because there weren't enough 152mm guns. Hence ISU 122.

 

Of course they don't have any issues in game. If they did it would be a randomized failure, something they'll never add. Just because I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer when it comes to tanks doesn't mean i'm an incompetent moron.

 

Furthermore, you left your initial comment vague of "Oh well prototypes wont have their issues modeled, so therefore they become better than production tanks".... Without ever bothering to elaborate on what kind of issues. For all I know they wont be modeled in WT for a whole variety of reasons. 

 

 

 

My point still stands that they were produced within months of one another, which is a correct statement. 

 

The SU-152 was accepted for mass production in February of '43. 

 

The ISU-152 was accepted for mass production in December of '43. 

 

 

10 months of difference does not constitute virtually identical machines being placed so far apart.

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the primary reasons it failed was the differences in beliefs between the two countries at what an MBT should be capable of. Generally projects work a bit better when everybody agrees on what needs to be done..

 

 

Technically speaking (If you want to get into all of the technicalities of it...) the idea was born in 1963, wooden mockups existed 1964, the drivetrain and 14 hulls were built 1965-1966, including mild steel hulls, etc. Testing of the drivetrain happened in 1966, and by 1968, full trials began.

 

 

So, technically out of the timeline for the full & Complete vehicle, the question is that, does a hull constitute the full vehicle...?

 

Can you drive a hull into battle and fight in it?

 

 

No. You lack a turret.

 

Of course they don't have any issues in game. If they did it would be a randomized failure, something they'll never add. Just because I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer when it comes to tanks doesn't mean i'm an incompetent moron.

 

Furthermore, you left your initial comment vague of "Oh well prototypes wont have their issues modeled, so therefore they become better than production tanks".... Without ever bothering to elaborate on what kind of issues. For all I know they wont be modeled in WT for a whole variety of reasons. 

 

Some prototypes, had critical issues that forced them out of service. The MBT-70's crew were nauseated and seasick, the driver especially. The IS-7...the weight etc. Issues that aren't really modeled in the game, and without these issues, they're superior to production vehicles in raw performance.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-snip-

 

10 months of difference does not constitute virtually identical machines being placed so far apart.

 virtually identical?...the gun is identical, but is SU 152 built on a KW-1 base and the ISU built on a IS-1 base, hence the "I" in the name

btw, could you stop derailing another thread, this is about MBT 70

Edited by Asgar1205
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course they don't have any issues in game. If they did it would be a randomized failure, something they'll never add. Just because I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer when it comes to tanks doesn't mean i'm an incompetent moron.

 

Furthermore, you left your initial comment vague of "Oh well prototypes wont have their issues modeled, so therefore they become better than production tanks".... Without ever bothering to elaborate on what kind of issues. For all I know they wont be modeled in WT for a whole variety of reasons. 

 

 

 

My point still stands that they were produced within months of one another, which is a correct statement. 

 

The SU-152 was accepted for mass production in February of '43. 

 

The ISU-152 was accepted for mass production in December of '43. 

 

 

10 months of difference does not constitute virtually identical machines being placed so far apart.

 

Accepted for mass production is not the same date the actual mass production started.......

 

Also the ISU 152 was not virtually identical at all.

 

KV 1 =/= IS 1.

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So, technically out of the timeline for the full & Complete vehicle, the question is that, does a hull constitute the full vehicle...?

That is not a question. A hull is not a full vehicle. A fully functioning prototype is a full vehicle. There is nothing to debate. Is a person's legs a full person?

  • Upvote 4
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is not a question. A hull is not a full vehicle. A fully functioning prototype is a full vehicle. There is nothing to debate. Is a person's legs a full person?

So What are you supposed to say about the E-100?

 

Or the Panther II/Tiger 105?

 

Or even paper tanks planes?

 

 

Or do anatomy drawings of a human count more as human than someone's leg?

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So What are you supposed to say about the E-100?

 

Or the Panther II/Tiger 105?

 

Or even paper tanks planes?

 

 

Or do anatomy drawings of a human count more as human than someone's leg?

We have the current paper tanks because we need them

 

We don't need the kamphpanzer...

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So What are you supposed to say about the E-100?

It's not in the game so that's irrelevant.

 

Or the Panther II/Tiger 105?

The Panther II and King Tiger were both built, it's just that their weapons are fantasy.

 

Or even paper tanks planes?

Only R2Y2, hardly a game-breaker.

 

 

Or do anatomy drawings of a human count more as human than someone's leg?

This is not exactly a good analogy.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have the current paper tanks because we need them

 

We don't need the kamphpanzer...

 

The M60 patton is slow... 15 hp/t (Not very much in the grand scheme of things...) and only 30 miles per hour... It's also a pretty tall vehicle, about ten feet tall compared to the MBT's 6 and a half.

 

 

Or the Panther II/Tiger 105?

The Panther II and King Tiger were both built, it's just that their weapons are fantasy.

 

 

MBT was built.... But we might just have to have fantasy weapons....  :dntknw:

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The M60 patton is slow... 15 hp/t (Not very much in the grand scheme of things...) and only 30 miles per hour... It's also a pretty tall vehicle, about ten feet tall compared to the MBT's 6 and a half.

 

 

MBT was built.... But we might just have to have fantasy weapons....  :dntknw:

We have no idea what the M60 will be when/if it comes. Arguing about how it is going to be so bad as to justify a prototype from the late 60s is about 10 steps further than where the game is at. Frankly I think this idea is so far outside the box that it is a waste of my time to bother posting anything at all for or against it. This is never going to happen unless of course the devs release information that they will be going into the 1970s. I'll care about this thread then. 

 

My point was your comment is ridiculous. A hull is not a fully built tank in any conceivable way, how is that even a question. I don't care what tank you are talking about. 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The M60 patton is slow... 15 hp/t (Not very much in the grand scheme of things...) and only 30 miles per hour... It's also a pretty tall vehicle, about ten feet tall compared to the MBT's 6 and a half.

 

Fine, you get your MBT 70, I get my T-80U, the best MBT at it's time, only put back by it's ludicrously high cost.

 

Deal? 

 

[Do note the T-80U can fuck the MBT 70 from any range, any spot, any area, while remaining to be semi invulnerable to the MBT 70. It's only fair!]

 

Also, you have 2 options.

 

Either M60A1 Patton, or M47 Patton.

 

No MBT 70, not buts, no ifs. You want the M60A1, sure, take it. Don't want it? Too bad, stay with your M47.

 

--

 

Also LOL...

 

You dare bring up the KT 105 and the Panther II?

 

They're there because Germany NEEDS them. Without them, it's Tiger II vs IS 4M and Panther Ausf. F vs T-54.

 

I am sure you'd love that, but there are people who actually care for balance.

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fine, you get your MBT 70, I get my T-80U, the best MBT at it's time, only put back by it's ludicrously high cost.

 

Deal? 

 

[Do note the T-80U can xxxx the MBT 70 from any range, any spot, any area, while remaining to be semi invulnerable to the MBT 70. It's only fair!]

 

Also, you have 2 options.

 

Either M60A1 Patton, or M47 Patton.

 

No MBT 70, not buts, no ifs. You want the M60A1, sure, take it. Don't want it? Too bad, stay with your M47.

 

Lol, T-80U? That's a tank from 1985.. T-80U was covered in reactive armor. While the MBT-70/KPz.70 had spaced armor all around, they were still vulnerable at ranges of less than 1km. Most combat i've seen in WT (unless it's a big map like kursk... etc) has been at ranges of maybe half a km or less (Meaning at the usual engagement ranges, it would be completely vulnerable to tanks with good guns firing APCR. Most T5 tanks all have APCR, so I don't see the problem.).

 

Also, the effective range for standard munitions (Not the missiles..) Was only about 1,500m or less. Being weak to other munitions at 1,000m or less only gives ~500m of play room between the MBT being invulnerable yet still able to have effective fire.

 

 

 

And the M60 isn't much when you see that it's most likely going to fight the Leopard 1. (Just like the CL, it doesn't matter who it really fought with in real life..)

 

Top speed: Leopard 1 (+16kph)

Mobility: Leopard 1

Size (Smaller): Leopard 1 (shorter, also less wide than M60)

Gun: Same

Ammo count: M60 (Barely, but when does anybody blast through 60 rounds in one game...?)

Power/Weight: Leopard 1 (~25% more than M60)

Range: Leopard 1 (Although not currently modeled in WT.)

Armor: M60 (Although I doubt it's thick enough to prevent a shell from a Leopard 1 going through...)

 

As you can see, most everything points to the Leopard 1 being the better tank. Not really sure what else the US could implement to level the playing field, I doubt there's much. Pretty sure the "Starship" mod is past 1970, and even if it wasn't it would still have the same drawbacks as the M60A1, besides being harder to hit turret. 

 

 

I'd support a MBT if it was on-par with the Leopard 1 and it somehow fit the timeline. As far as I know, that tank didn't exist. Next closest solution is the MBT-70, except then we're just drawing the timeline out farther and farther because one nation is always going to be on top in this kind of situation. I'm almost at the point of saying it's going to be impossible to balance the extreme high range of Tier 5.

 

 

So my question to you, since you seem to be pretty bright in this area, is how would you balance it if adding the MBT-70 is crossing the line?

 

My $0.02 is that the M68/M60A1 just wont cut it in comparison to the Leopard 1, but you probably know something I don't. 

Edited by BlitzkriegWulf
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol, T-80U? That's a tank from 1985.. T-80U was covered in reactive armor. While the MBT-70/KPz.70 had spaced armor all around, they were still vulnerable at ranges of less than 1km. Most combat i've seen in WT (unless it's a big map like kursk... etc) has been at ranges of maybe half a km or less (Meaning at the usual engagement ranges, it would be completely vulnerable to tanks with good guns firing APCR. Most T5 tanks all have APCR, so I don't see the problem.).

 

Also, the effective range for standard munitions (Not the missiles..) Was only about 1,500m or less. Being weak to other munitions at 1,000m or less only gives ~500m of play room between the MBT being invulnerable yet still able to have effective fire.

 

 

 

And the M60 isn't much when you see that it's most likely going to fight the Leopard 1. (Just like the CL, it doesn't matter who it really fought with in real life..)

 

Top speed: Leopard 1 (+16kph)

Mobility: Leopard 1

Size (Smaller): Leopard 1 (shorter, also less wide than M60)

Gun: Same

Ammo count: M60 (Barely, but when does anybody blast through 60 rounds in one game...?)

Power/Weight: Leopard 1 (~25% more than M60)

Range: Leopard 1 (Although not currently modeled in WT.)

Armor: M60 (Although I doubt it's thick enough to prevent a shell from a Leopard 1 going through...)

 

As you can see, most everything points to the Leopard 1 being the better tank. Not really sure what else the US could implement to level the playing field, I doubt there's much. Pretty sure the "Starship" mod is past 1970, and even if it wasn't it would still have the same drawbacks as the M60A1, besides being harder to hit turret. 

 

 

I'd support a MBT if it was on-par with the Leopard 1 and it somehow fit the timeline. As far as I know, that tank didn't exist. Next closest solution is the MBT-70, except then we're just drawing the timeline out farther and farther because one nation is always going to be on top in this kind of situation. I'm almost at the point of saying it's going to be impossible to balance the extreme high range of Tier 5.

 

 

So my question to you, since you seem to be pretty bright in this area, is how would you balance it if adding the MBT-70 is crossing the line?

 

My $0.02 is that the M68/M60A1 just wont cut it in comparison to the Leopard 1, but you probably know something I don't. 

well if you want to "level the playing field" the MBT-70 would be just as stupid as the CL-13... because again Germany and the US would have the exact same top tier vehicle. yes, it's level, but American are going to whine, just like they do about the CL-13

Edited by Asgar1205
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well if you want to "level the playing field" the MBT-70 would be just as stupid as the CL-13... because again Germany and the US would have the exact same top tier vehicle. yes, it's level, but American are going to whine, just like they do about the CL-13

 

The only thing i kick and scream about like a little girl with the CL-13 is that it should fight with nato rather than pact (Whether it's been "fixed" or not, I don't actually know. I haven't flown my high tier jets for a long time, and currently I need to do a fresh install of windows.). My greatest concern at this time is that the Leopard 1, a development of West Germany, is going to end up fighting with East Germany instead.

 

 

And so while the MBT might not be the right answer, what else is there to turn to?

 

I mean, there's the T95 medium tank, which has a 90mm, but it's a smoothbore, so who knows how well that one will go over. 

There's the T92 light tank with a 76mm which might be good as a top end light, but I doubt it would be up to par with any MBT. 

 

The T110 series were heavy tanks from the mid fifties, not really MBT's

 

 

I guess my point is, yeah the USA has it's own "MBT" if you could call an M60 as such, but it seems to be outclassed entirely by the Leopard 1, and doesn't really seem to have anything it can do that the Leopard cant. It's bigger, slower, has the same gun, and for almost all situations where battles take place, might as well have the same armor. 

Edited by BlitzkriegWulf
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing i kick and scream about like a little girl with the CL-13 is that it should fight with nato rather than pact (Whether it's been "fixed" or not, I don't actually know. I haven't flown my high tier jets for a long time, and currently I need to do a fresh install of windows.). My greatest concern at this time is that the Leopard 1, a development of West Germany, is going to end up fighting with East Germany instead.

 

 

And so while the MBT might not be the right answer, what else is there to turn to?

 

I mean, there's the T95 medium tank, which has a 90mm, but it's a smoothbore, so who knows how well that one will go over. 

There's the T92 light tank with a 76mm which might be good as a top end light, but I doubt it would be up to par with any MBT. 

 

The T110 series were heavy tanks from the mid fifties, not really MBT's

 

 

I guess my point is, yeah the USA has it's own "MBT" if you could call an M60 as such, but it seems to be outclassed entirely by the Leopard 1, and doesn't really seem to have anything it can do that the Leopard cant. It's bigger, slower, has the same gun, and for almost all situations where battles take place, might as well have the same armor. 

 

Yeah, which is exactly why I say 'add it!', it really isn't to much of a stretch to add the design, since at the time it was designed it was needed specifically to counter tanks like the T-62 series, which the west had only the (unreliable) Chieftain to counter. Only reason it wasn't fully in testing until 1968 was because of the constant delays that resulted in the US Army and the Heer not agreeing on what kind of tank to make...

 

Still, I do like the idea of giving it atleast the 152mm LoS Rocket to use as a long-range AT weapon (requires no guessing on distance, but, it's slower then normal rounds, and you're certainly not making any trick shots with it).

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh don't worry, you get used to being outclassed in every way by your enemy. Germans managed it too  :yes:

 

My point is, no country should have to be on the bottom. Ideally you'd like all the countries to be relatively equal.

 

 

It's fine for one tank to be slower than another, but if the slower tank has, for example, a very high horsepower/ton or a better gun, then the advantages sort of equalize themselves, and that's fine. In fact, that's actually a good thing. It gives quite a bit of diversity and allows players to pick the tank best suited to them. 

 

What isn't right is when one tank holds 90% of the advantages over the other, and the 10% don't really amount to much in WT..

 

 

 

I know you're biased against the US because of all the clubbing they've done, I understand that, but to me there's no reason why the nations cant be equivalent. Ideally a game is balanced, yes?

Edited by BlitzkriegWulf
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...