MBT-70/Kampfpanzer-70

[Abgeschossene 10,084]

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. 

 

The M60A1 [not M60, just.. not M60 please] will be balanced by it's frontal armor. If they model it's FCS, then there you go.

 

There's another solution, suggested by SteelWings, the T95 medium tank. 

 

M60A2 wouldn't be good BTW. Like you said, it's a M60A1 with a stronger turret and an arguably worse gun.

 

Also, don't use CL 13 vs F-86F-2 as a basis.

 

In game, it's T-54 mod. 1951 + T-54 mod. 1947 + M47 vs Panther II. Not even kidding, if you have a high enough vehicle, try it out.

[Asgar1205 1,471]

-snip-

 

 

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?

 

 

-snip-

 

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...)

 

-snip-

yes the game should be balanced. but look at the current situation. German Medium in Tier V i the Panther II

top speed: Panther II (says stats card, but the time the Panther need to reach it ..meh)
mobility: T54 although Panther has better hp/ton (doesn't really show)
size: T54 has much lower silhouette

gun: Panther is better, but T-54 and other enemies don't care, because armor to thick or bounce

ammo: Panther but 34 of the T54 is enough for any match isn't it? and we can reload
power Panther II 4 hp/ton more 

range: not important for WT
Armor: T54 by far. at a 100m you would have to hit exactely under the gun to pen the turret, shooting the glacis? good luck, only way to kill it for sure is the site

the recent patch of the Panther made it finally useful, but the T54 still has a easy time killing the Panther by either outflanking or simply shooting right through the turret front, or even gun mantlet (effective thickness 300+mm)

it's pretty much the same with Leopard 1 and M60 and since the SB and RB in tank battles are now pretty mixed up, i think you're gonna fight with Leopards often enough ;)

Edited January 11, 2015 by Asgar1205

[Tank50us 266]

It should go without saying that when we're talking about generations of tanks here (the first being the WW1 and several pre-war machines), the MBT-70 shares the same generation (gen 4) as the Leopard 1, Chieftain, M60, and T-62. It should be noted that the tank was basically designed in a time when the thinking in DC was "How much can we make one machine do?", without bothering to consider what the guys in the field actually needed, which is why the project ultimately fell on its face.

 

Basically, I see this tank being a Jack-of-all-Stats tank... it's got a decent gun, but other Rank V tanks (both current and projected) have better guns in terms of performance. It's fast, but the speed is highly situational, and there are tanks that can move faster. The frontal armor is ok, but there are tanks that will have no problem beating it. Basically, it's going to come down to how well the player handles the tank. If you want a tank that's moderately adaptable to rapidly changing situations? This could be the tank for you. But, if you want a tank that can go "I'm gonna sit on this hill, try and take it from me!" you might want to get something better.

 

And before anyone says anything about Tank-generations... I looked it up... apparently someone thinks that WW1 and WW2 tanks aren't worthy of being their own generations of tank design.

[Smin1080p_WT 60,444]

Moved to further discussion  :salute:

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

Moved to further discussion  :salute:

 

Passed to development? :P  :lol:

[igeticsu 3,400]

looks nice. :D

[ItsCalledSoccer 96]

Interesting tank, would like to drive it should later Russian tanks prove to be overpowered. +1

[Nope 10,634]

So I toyed around with some measuring software and I found this neat little picture:

 

 

Oh boy, it's time for penetration examination! Something people got stuck on for a while!

 

Now, my measurements led to a 380mm long rod, a diameter of 38mm or so, a frustum length of around 110mm as well. This is after using the width of the shell as a scale for 152mm. And then we get the density which is 18500 kg/m^3. And it's made out of tungsten. And the muzzle velocity is rated at 1478 m/s:

 

 

So, what did I find? PB perforation of 440mm. Perforation is always a bit higher than actual penetration, but let's just say that it's 440mm PB. This is literally atrociously overpowered for a long rod. You know at what range the T-62's hull gets penetrated? 2.75 km. Which range can the T-62 do the same? Well with steel penetrators, we get about 450mm effective armor. Any takers? Does anyone think the front hull is a viable target? Yes, it may be weaker against subcaliber, but do you know the much lower effectiveness required? It's ridiculous. Might as well be shooting at it with a Pz II. Oh but the LFP is weaker, surely this will be good right? This is what i will address in the next paragraph.

 

Now, in case anyone wants to bring up the "but you can flank" argument, don't bother. The MBT-70 is very agile. Implying that by 3 times the acceleration of the M60 what is meant is a third of the time to get to 20 mph, we get 10.7 seconds to get to 32 km/h at worst. It's safe to assume one can get to 9 seconds for 20 mph. It's then way too hard to flank it. With tanks that have the ability to flank so well one only has time to fart in the tank's general direction. But nope, we get extremely good armor at the front. On the turn rate though?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YE7CUO0yuMo

 

No I am not going to use History Channel's facts here. Don't be stupid. I'm using the footage of it turning specifically at 0:48 and 1:28. At 0:48 it's a general indication of its turn rate at speed, but at 1:28 we see that in terms of neutral steer it could rotate 90 degrees in two seconds. The Leopard 1 rotates in 2.75-3 seconds (1:38):

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfqCSMWa3N8

 

More agile than the Leopard 1 eh? Therefore it cannot be flanked easily. On another note, here's the M60 (0:43):

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jccUrRqBqv4

 

This time it's 4 seconds for a 90 degree neutral turn. See how inconvenienced an M60 may be here?

 

In other words, hell no. Much better accuracy on the move, superior gun, superior front armor and much better mobility means it will just be OP. Why it got to further discussion is beyond me. This tank should never be implemented in WT.

[DavidXD 1,355]

Impressive tank !

I support.

[Asgar1205 1,471]

the KPz-70 is better than the MBT-70

[Nope 10,634]

the KPz-70 is better than the MBT-70

 

They're the exact same.

[Grand_Moff_Tano 3,460]

They're the exact same.

Incorrect, the KPz-70 would have a 120mm Smoothbore

while the MBT-70 had a 152mm Gun/Launcher.

Edited July 7, 2015 by SqnLdrAhsokaTano

[Nope 10,634]

Incorrect, the KPz-70 would have a 120mm Smoothbore

 

while the MBT-70 had a 152mm Gun/Launcher.

 

It's actually more of a manufacturer preference that changed rather than the performance. The Germans wanted a Rheinmetall autoloader and a Daimler-Benz engine, while the US stuck to Continental's engine and General Motors's autoloader. The gun wasn't touched at all, hence why the Germans went to make the Keiler MBT, which initially had a 105mm smoothbore but later evolved to getting the 120mm smoothbore and then becoming the Leopard 2.

[Grand_Moff_Tano 3,460]

It's actually more of a manufacturer preference that changed rather than the performance. The Germans wanted a Rheinmetall autoloader and a Daimler-Benz engine, while the US stuck to Continental's engine and General Motors's autoloader. The gun wasn't touched at all, hence why the Germans went to make the Keiler MBT, which initially had a 105mm smoothbore but later evolved to getting the 120mm smoothbore and then becoming the Leopard 2.

Look at the top picture again, they did fit some KPz-70's with 120mm Smoothbore guns.

[Choogleblitz 10,205]

Sure, I'll take a T-64B with that though. 

[Asgar1205 1,471]

Sure, I'll take a T-64B with that though. 

 

fine with me, have fun getting slaughtered  :salute:

[ZeCats 31]

Enugh of theese cold war tanks. This didnt even get out of prototype

 

-1

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

Enugh of theese cold war tanks. This didnt even get out of prototype

 

-1

 

Care to refresh my memory about non-cold war tanks that never got out of prototype stage?

[ValkyrieLitewing 1,659]

As impressive as this tank is, no. A million times no. If this tank was added, the other nations would need their own tanks to counter it.

Russia--> T-64

Britain--> Chieftain Mk.5

Japan--> STB/Type 74

 

I don't know about you, but I'd rather not have the T-64 in game.

 

This tank would just open the possibilities of tanks that would ruin tier 5. A pair of these things in a squad could ruin the other team. They would get to the cap zone faster than the enemy team could leave their base, and they could sit there taking hit after hit, while dishing out so much firepower the enemy team would be crippled. (This may have been an exaggeration, but my point was to explain the possibilities of this tank in War Thunder.)

 

Maybe at a way later date, this tank could be considered depending on the balance and other things of Ground Forces. 

[Grand_Moff_Tano 3,460]

As impressive as this tank is, no. A million times no. If this tank was added, the other nations would need their own tanks to counter it.
Russia--> T-64
Britain--> Chieftain Mk.5
Japan--> STB/Type 74

I don't know about you, but I'd rather not have the T-64 in game.

This tank would just open the possibilities of tanks that would ruin tier 5. A pair of these things in a squad could ruin the other team. They would get to the cap zone faster than the enemy team could leave their base, and they could sit there taking hit after hit, while dishing out so much firepower the enemy team would be crippled. (This may have been an exaggeration, but my point was to explain the possibilities of this tank in War Thunder.)

Maybe at a way later date, this tank could be considered depending on the balance and other things of Ground Forces.

I'd enjoy going face to face with a T-64 but the T-62 would do fine as both had the same gun, a 115mm Smoothbore gun

[Asgar1205 1,471]

if you haven't noticed. Tier V is already ruined. and it was neither the M60 nor the Leo. it was the IS-4M and now the T-10M

[ValkyrieLitewing 1,659]

I'd enjoy going face to face with a T-64 but the T-62 would do fine as both had the same gun, a 115mm Smoothbore gun

You'd enjoy going face to face with something that was better than a T-72??? No thanks, I'd like my sanity intact

[Grand_Moff_Tano 3,460]

You'd enjoy going face to face with something that was better than a T-72??? No thanks, I'd like my sanity intact

You've never heard of a Chieftain Mk5 before then :p

[Choogleblitz 10,205]

You've never heard of a Chieftain Mk5 before then :p

 

The variant that had 0% chance to penetrate the T-64 with its LFP hidden, whereas the HEAT round from the T-64 would chew through the turret of the Chieftain with ease? I mean, if you really want to fight it, be my guest. You're going to have a bad time, as would any NATO tank until they came out with HEAT-resistant armour and cannons to penetrate the T-64. Even at that point, I don't think the RM120 had the ammunition to penetrate the UFP of the T-64 (same with base T-80's as their blends are very similar) until around the mid-late 90's. 

Edited July 17, 2015 by Choogleblitz

[Grand_Moff_Tano 3,460]

The variant that had 0% chance to penetrate the T-64 with its LFP hidden, whereas the HEAT round from the T-64 would chew through the turret of the Chieftain with ease? I mean, if you really want to fight it, be my guest. You're going to have a bad time, as would any NATO tank until they came out with HEAT-resistant armour and cannons to penetrate the T-64. Even at that point, I don't think the RM120 had the ammunition to penetrate the UFP of the T-64 until around the mid-late 90's.

Sorry to break it to you but the Chieftain was a match for both the T-64 and T-72