MBT-70/Kampfpanzer-70

[Choogleblitz 10,205]

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

 

Are you sure you're not confusing its protection and firepower with very late model Chieftains, like the Mk. 10 for example? It wasn't until the 80's when the Chieftain received a better APFSDS round, and it wasn't until 85(?) when it received Stillbrew on its turret. Some T-72 models? Sure, the Chieftain could match it. The T-64? Not even close in terms of protection, nor did it possess the firepower to defeat the T-64 frontally. Chieftain is really overhyped for the pure lack of acknowledgement of its Soviet counterpart.

Edited July 17, 2015 by Choogleblitz

[Grand_Moff_Tano 3,460]

Are you sure you're not confusing its protection and firepower with very late model Chieftains, like the Mk. 10 for example? It wasn't until the 80's when the Chieftain received a better APFSDS round, and it wasn't until 85(?) when it received Stillbrew on its turret. Some T-72 models? Sure, the Chieftain could match it. The T-64? Not even close in terms of protection, nor did it possess the firepower to defeat the T-64 frontally. Chieftain is really overhyped for the pure lack of acknowledgement of its Soviet counterpart.

I'm not confusing the Mk 5 for a 10 nor am I making a tank look better than it actually is, one thing about Russian tanks is having Ammoracks around the turret so one well placed HESH round and you won't be using a T-64, this wasn't much of a problem with T-72 due to the automatic loader

[Choogleblitz 10,205]

I'm not confusing the Mk 5 for a 10 nor am I making a tank look better than it actually is, one thing about Russian tanks is having Ammoracks around the turret so one well placed HESH round and you won't be using a T-64, this wasn't much of a problem with T-72 due to the automatic loader

 

The steel value alone of the T-64's turret is too thick for HESH to affect it. The energy loss due to composites, the NBC (mostly functioning spall-liner - 64A only IIRC) and the first steel plate would scab due to the small gaps between the plate and the composites, resulting in energy loss. Not to forget that the angle of the T-64's UFP is beyond the sweet spot of HESH, allowing for partial squashing and generally poor performance. Again, frontally, NATO had virtually nothing to defeat the T-64. Virtually every CIA examination of the T-64 agreed with this point. They basically concluded with the fact that the NATO tanks would have to beat the T-64 purely through numbers or using flanking tactics. This indirectly included the very often overstated Chieftian, which did not become a contemporary to the T-64 until 1985, 17-20 years after the T-64 first came out. 

 

[SPOILER]

 

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a954868.pdf

"The available data on the armor-defeating performance of high explosive plastic (HEP) shell indicates that this round can cause the scabbing or spalling of armor up to 1.3 calibers in thickness over a wide range of obliquities. Unlike kinetic energy armor-piercing projectiles, the performance of HEP shell is not greatly influenced by obliquity of attack at least within the range *>30° to 60 ; The same thickness of armor can be defeated over this whole range of obliquities. As a matter of fact, the performance of HEP shell is worse in the range of 0 to 30 obliquity than at higher obliquities due primarily to the fact that the explosive charge is not spread over the face of the armor as effectively at very low obliquities as it is at higher obliquities. The HEP shell is also degraded at obliquities ofsfctack above approximately 60°."

[/SPOILER]

Edited July 18, 2015 by Choogleblitz

[_Sync 1,028]

+1 but only if we get a new tier because if this gets added, this is going to roflstomp everything at Tier V.

If no new tier then no.

[Nope 10,634]

I'm not confusing the Mk 5 for a 10 nor am I making a tank look better than it actually is, one thing about Russian tanks is having Ammoracks around the turret so one well placed HESH round and you won't be using a T-64, this wasn't much of a problem with T-72 due to the automatic loader

 

>HESH actually working with composite tanks

 

Yeah right. If that wasn't enough, consider that HESH is usually effective up to 1.3x the diameter. The 120mm HESH is then not good enough.

 

As for the Chieftain's gun, my estimates put the PB penetration around 410mm. Believe it or not, this goes through the UFP up to 500m. The Chieftain's UFP is easy prey up to 1.3 km with steel APFSDS. Same goes against the turret that's as equally armored on the cheeks, and possibly everywhere else on the turret front considering that the Chieftain has no gun mantlet. That's reminiscent of the good old KT 105 vs T-54 thing back in the days, which did not work out that well. The Chieftain isn't exactly fast either.

 

I'd have to agree with Choogle here. The early Chieftain is not comparable in any way to the T-64A. The T-64 is another story, but it's still a bit debatable considering mobility.

[Grand_Moff_Tano 3,460]

>HESH actually working with composite tanks

Yeah right. If that wasn't enough, consider that HESH is usually effective up to 1.3x the diameter. The 120mm HESH is then not good enough.

As for the Chieftain's gun, my estimates put the PB penetration around 410mm. Believe it or not, this goes through the UFP up to 500m. The Chieftain's UFP is easy prey up to 1.3 km with steel APFSDS. Same goes against the turret that's as equally armored on the cheeks, and possibly everywhere else on the turret front considering that the Chieftain has no gun mantlet. That's reminiscent of the good old KT 105 vs T-54 thing back in the days, which did not work out that well. The Chieftain isn't exactly fast either.

I'd have to agree with Choogle here. The early Chieftain is not comparable in any way to the T-64A. The T-64 is another story, but it's still a bit debatable considering mobility.

T-64 was immune to HESH and HEAT from the front but can still be knocked out from the sides. Also the T-64 which I need to correct myself on after getting some books from Bovington also had the autoloader. Other than that both the Chieftain Mk 5 and T-64 are an equal match for each other.

[_PabloSniper_ 2,142]

from what I saw on that link, it gave rise to the M1 Abrams?

 

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/US/M1_Abrams.php

[Renamed99495 3,247]

-crap-

 

How come people want to make tier 5 bit more balanced then you jump out and say some random crap like t-64 t-64 like russia always has to be top tier ...

[Grand_Moff_Tano 3,460]

from what I saw on that link, it gave rise to the M1 Abrams?

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/US/M1_Abrams.php

MBT-70 & Kpz-70 led to the developments of the M1 Abrams and Leopard 2 Main Battle Tanks

How come people want to make tier 5 bit more balanced then you jump out and say some random crap like t-64 t-64 like russia always has to be top tier ...

T-62 is all they need as both had the same 115mm gun

[Choogleblitz 10,205]

How come people want to make tier 5 bit more balanced then you jump out and say some random crap like t-64 t-64 like russia always has to be top tier ...

• Fix AP, APHE, APCR, APDS/APFSDS, HEAT, and HESH.
• Russia fleshed out with T-55 and T-62.
• Germany fleshed out with M41, M47, M48, Kanonenjagdpanzer, and T-55.
• America fleshed out with the M48 and designs alike. 

 

Game's balanced then, but people want **** like the Chieftian and MBT/KPZ 70, which would cause imbalance and open the door to the T-64, and no NATO fan wants to fight the T-64 if they appreciate being alive. As of now, Russia is lacking any vehicle from the 60's, and their jet is in the same situation of fighting F-Sabres without the MiG-17A (F-Sabre contemporary) being in game. Why does Russia always have to miss out on equal contemporaries? 

Edited July 18, 2015 by Choogleblitz

[Grand_Moff_Tano 3,460]

• Fix AP, APHE, APCR, APDS/APFSDS, HEAT, and HESH.
• Russia fleshed out with T-55 and T-62.
• Germany fleshed out with M41, M47, M48, Kanonenjagdpanzer, and T-55.
• America fleshed out with the M48 and designs alike.

Game's balanced then, but people want **** like the Chieftian and MBT/KPZ 70, which would cause imbalance and open the door to the T-64, and no NATO fan wants to fight the T-64 if they appreciate being alive. As of now, Russia is lacking any vehicle from the 60's, and their jet is in the same situation of fighting F-Sabres without the MiG-17A (F-Sabre contemporary) being in game. Why does Russia always have to miss out because of the whinefest?</p>

Initial production T-64 is fine, T-64A would be a no go anyway unless you want the later production Chieftain and XM-1 Abrams

[Choogleblitz 10,205]

Initial production T-64 is fine, T-64A would be a no go anyway unless you want the later production Chieftain and XM-1 Abrams

 

The problem is the Chieftain would cause imbalance, which would result in the T-64. The T-64 would cause a massive imbalance, which would need to be solved with 80's designs. It's just like aircraft, you can only go so far before true balance is impossible. 

[Grand_Moff_Tano 3,460]

The problem is the Chieftain would cause imbalance, which would result in the T-64. The T-64 would cause a massive imbalance, which would need to be solved with 80's designs. It's just like aircraft, you can only go so far before true balance is impossible.

Balance is impossible and both the Chieftain and T-64 are a match for each other, frontally the T-64 has the advantage but the Chieftain has speed.

Also I love the MiG-17 since its a match for the F-86F and the Hunter F.1 Edited July 18, 2015 by SqnLdrAhsokaTano

[_Sync 1,028]

from what I saw on that link, it gave rise to the M1 Abrams?

 

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/US/M1_Abrams.php

it led to leopard 2 and M1 Abrams

[Nope 10,634]

Balance is impossible and both the Chieftain and T-64 are a match for each other, frontally the T-64 has the advantage but the Chieftain has speed.

 

>Chieftain vs T-64

>speed goes to Chieftain

 

The T-64's agility is superior to an M60's (15 seconds to reach 32 km/s from what I can tell and faster traverse rate), a T-62's (per assessment by in Soviet Union tests), and only is slower in acceleration than a Leopard 1. I can only give credit to the Chieftain for having a better gun, but this may cause the whole T-54 vs KT 105 thing people despise anyway because the T-64 is fully stabilized and is probably going to be one of the more speedy MBTs at top tier. It would be a mess to balance considering that the footage I see of Chieftains moving isn't as spectacular as that of a T-64. It's not really direct firepower that worries me more than the mobility and relative armor. Sure, Chieftains can penetrate the T-64's UFP, but only at pretty close ranges.

 

For now it would just be an unnecessary mess just thinking about how composites work and everything. It would be best to stick to leaving it at T-62, M60, T-10M, M103 and Centurion mk 7. It could be fine at this point given that I found out that a previous estimation I made about the 115mm steel APFSDS is wrong. The T-62 actually falls somewhat even.

[Grand_Moff_Tano 3,460]

>Chieftain vs T-64
>speed goes to Chieftain

The T-64's agility is superior to an M60's (15 seconds to reach 32 km/s from what I can tell and faster traverse rate), a T-62's (per assessment by in Soviet Union tests), and only is slower in acceleration than a Leopard 1. I can only give credit to the Chieftain for having a better gun, but this may cause the whole T-54 vs KT 105 thing people despise anyway because the T-64 is fully stabilized and is probably going to be one of the more speedy MBTs at top tier. It would be a mess to balance considering that the footage I see of Chieftains moving isn't as spectacular as that of a T-64. It's not really direct firepower that worries me more than the mobility and relative armor. Sure, Chieftains can penetrate the T-64's UFP, but only at pretty close ranges.

For now it would just be an unnecessary mess just thinking about how composites work and everything. It would be best to stick to leaving it at T-62, M60, T-10M, M103 and Centurion mk 7. It could be fine at this point given that I found out that a previous estimation I made about the 115mm steel APFSDS is wrong. The T-62 actually falls somewhat even.

T-64s speed solely depends on the version as it ranges from a max of 45-60km/h where the Chieftain can reach 48km/h meaning it's faster than earlier versions of the T-64

[Nope 10,634]

T-64s speed solely depends on the version as it ranges from a max of 45-60km/h where the Chieftain can reach 48km/h meaning it's faster than earlier versions of the T-64

 

One difference though: the T-64 can reach its top speed much earlier as we're comparing a tank that's known for atrocious acceleration compared to tanks of its time including the M60 strangely enough to a tank that could only be beaten by the Leopard 1 in mobility, but that mere 3 km/h difference apparently makes it faster. It does not long as it has significantly worse acceleration. Top speed differences of 3 km/h do not mean anything if the acceleration disparity is that high. I thought we all agreed on that.

Edited July 19, 2015 by Nope

[Grand_Moff_Tano 3,460]

One difference though: the T-64 can reach its top speed much earlier as we're comparing a tank that's known for atrocious acceleration compared to tanks of its time including the M60 strangely enough to a tank that could only be beaten by the Leopard 1 in mobility, but that mere 3 km/h difference apparently makes it faster. It does not long as it has significantly worse acceleration. Top speed differences of 3 km/h do not mean anything if the acceleration disparity is that high. I thought we all agreed on that.

Acceleration also depends on terrain, and British tanks performed better than Soviet contemporaries in Desert warfare due to the gun depression.

In terms of speed Chieftain performed better on road, while the T-64 has better offroad performance but in combat capability the Chieftain wins hands-down In Desert and along Hills. Edited July 19, 2015 by SqnLdrAhsokaTano

[Nope 10,634]

Acceleration also depends on terrain, and British tanks performed better than Soviet contemporaries in Desert warfare due to the gun depression.

In terms of speed Chieftain performed better on road, while the T-64 has better offroad performance but in combat capability the Chieftain wins hands-down In Desert and along Hills.

 

The T-64 accelerates faster than the T-72 Ural that seems to lack certain components that may improve mobility present in later variants, and the Ural takes 16 seconds to get to 32 km/h if this site is accurate:

 

http://www.nimda.co.il/image/users/199098/ftp/my_files/t72/T-72.pdf?id=9266537

 

However, I cannot find anything concerning the Chieftain tank's mobility other than people stating it was bad without specifying whether it was the mk5 with the 750 bhp engine or the earlier versions with the 650 bhp engine. While the mobility difference is barely anything on paper, the percentage of engine power is transferred to the drivetrain could have changed. Though through how we have an equivalent engine to the T-64's but on a significantly heavier chassis, the conversion must be better compared to the most advanced Russian tank back in the 60s that beat the older T-62 in mobility, which was more mobile than the M60 in order to win in acceleration. That seems like an unlikely bet at this point.

Edited July 19, 2015 by Nope

[Grand_Moff_Tano 3,460]

The T-64 accelerates faster than the T-72 Ural that seems to lack certain components that may improve mobility present in later variants, and the Ural takes 16 seconds to get to 32 km/h if this site is accurate:

http://www.nimda.co.il/image/users/199098/ftp/my_files/t72/T-72.pdf?id=9266537

However, I cannot find anything concerning the Chieftain tank's mobility other than people stating it was bad without specifying whether it was the mk5 with the 750 bhp engine or the earlier versions with the 650 bhp engine. While the mobility difference is barely anything on paper, the percentage of engine power is transferred to the drivetrain could have changed. Though through how we have an equivalent engine to the T-64's but on a significantly heavier chassis, the conversion must be better compared to the most advanced Russian tank back in the 60s that beat the older T-62 in mobility, which was more mobile than the M60 in order to win in acceleration. That seems like an unlikely bet at this point.

Most of what I found only state the hp/tonne ratio for the earlier versions

[Nope 10,634]

Most of what I found only state the hp/tonne ratio for the earlier versions

 

Which is then irrelevant implying that the Chieftain's drivetrain is much superior. Which I doubt it is.

[Grand_Moff_Tano 3,460]

Which is then irrelevant implying that the Chieftain's drivetrain is much superior. Which I doubt it is.

I never made an implication

[_Sync 1,028]

MBT-70 at BR 8.0 = Roflstomp

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

MBT-70 at BR 8.0 = Roflstomp

 

What do you mean? Br 5.0 is where it's at :DD *Insert troll face*

[Grand_Moff_Tano 3,460]

To get a bit off topic though, the only 2 Chieftain Mks we'd most likely see in WT would be the Mk. I and II, the Mk. V entered service I think in the 70s, and the I and II aren't as formidable as later Mks and used a 12,7mm Machinegun for Aiming.